assessing the potential cost savings and resource savings...

Assessing the Potential Cost Savings

and Resource Savings of Investments in 4 SME sectors

Final Report prepared for

DG Environment

2 February 2015

Assessing the Potential Cost Savings and Resource Savings of Investments

in 4 SME sectors

February 2015

Final Report

Quality Assurance

Project reference / title J868 SME Resource Savings

Report status Final report

Author(s)

David Fleet

Michele Palladino

Shaun Da Costa

Approved for issue by Meg Postle

Date of issue 2 February 2015

Document Change Record

Report Version Date Change details

Final report 1.0 2 February 2015

Disclaimer

The views and propositions expressed herein are, unless otherwise stated, those of Risk & Policy Analysts and do not necessarily represent any official view of DG Environment or any other organisation mentioned in this report.

Recommended citation: RPA (2015): Assessing the Potential Cost Savings and Resource Savings of Investments in 4 SME sectors, report for DG

Environment, February 2015, Loddon, Norfolk, UK

Potential Cost and Resource Savings on Public and Private Investments RPA | i

Executive Summary

Need for the study

The aim of this study is to provide evidence to inform discussions on a potential investment plan for SMEs, within the context of the EU Agenda for Green Growth and Jobs, and the European Semester 2015 exercise. The rationale of the study is based on the importance given to resource efficiency as a tool to promote sustainable development, as recognized in the EU policy framework and in different initiatives at the Member State level.

A previous study conducted by Risk and Policy Analysts (RPA, 2014), which was published by the EC DG-Environment at the beginning of 2014, evaluated the potential for resource cost savings at the firm level connected to business support programmes targeted at SMEs across Europe.

The present study builds upon the main findings of RPA (2014).

Objectives of the study

This study assesses the potential benefits from implementing business support programmes across the Member States targeted at SMEs investing in resource efficiency. In RPA (2014), the ENWORKS programme in the UK was identified as having adopted a particularly effective approach to working with SMEs on resource efficiency issues. As a result of its comprehensive data collection system, it was decided to utilise the programme’s data on cost and resource savings to extrapolate the potential savings that might be made if similar programmes were implemented across all Member States. Potential benefits were estimated with regard to:

Cost savings from investments in resource efficiency measures, based on hypothetical scenarios modelling the implementation of an ENWORKS-type programme across the EU;

Possible reductions in resource use by SMEs supported by such a programme;

Potential employment effects (jobs created and secured) in SMEs across the EU as a result of support provided by these types of programmes;

The possibility of rolling out the ENWORKS online monitoring software tool across the EU.

The analysis is focused on four economic sectors: Food and Beverages; Construction; Energy, Power, and Utilities; and Environmental Technology.

Approach to the study

Two primary approaches were used to calculate the potential resource and cost savings across the four SME sectors:

Estimated savings approach: Calculates the cost savings that could be realised by a €4 billion public investment based on the relative cost of implementing ENWORKS-type programmes in individual Member States; it also makes assumptions regarding the baseline levels of resource efficiency that may exist across the EU-28 Member States; and

Validation approach: Measures the cost savings that could be made if an €11 billion private sector investment in resource efficiency measures was leveraged through a mix of (co) funding, loans and other financial instruments.

Potential Cost and Resource Savings on Public and Private Investments RPA | ii

Once costs savings were estimated, the associated reductions in resource use and the potential employment effects were also calculated.

Data on the outcomes of ENWORKS support, and information relating to the online monitoring software were collected through extensive consultation with ENWORKS project managers.

Main findings

Under the first approach, which calculates the cost savings that could be realised by €4 billion of public investment, it was estimated that total resource cost savings of € 8.7 billion/year across EU-28 could be realised.

The second validation approach, which assumed that the public investment would leverage a further €11 billion in private investment, yields cost savings more than three times higher than those estimated using the first approach (i.e. €32.8 billion per year). However, this higher estimate should be interpreted with caution, as it does not explicitly account for underlying levels of resource efficiency.

In terms of reductions in resource use, the results indicate that the savings could be significant. For instance, the investment could lead to 181.3 million tonnes of waste being diverted from landfills each year. Similarly, it could also lead to reductions in the use of 1.7 billion tonnes of material resources annually. Lastly, the results indicate that around 128,000 jobs could be created as an indirect benefit of the induced resource efficiency savings; this rises to 268,000 under the other scenario. Furthermore, the findings point towards the safeguarding of an extra 360,000 jobs, which would have been otherwise lost.

Finally, regarding the possibility of rolling out the ENWORKS Online Resource Efficiency Toolkit across EU-28, no significant costs are expected to be incurred by the companies using this tool, and the use of such a toolkit in other Member States should not face any major technical hurdles. The costs of implementing such measures to monitor the outcomes of support at a programme are expected to mirror those of the ENWORKS programme. The most significant of which are only around €18,600 annually for software maintenance, licences and secure socket layers (SSL), €18,600-€24,180 for server hosting and a variable budget for software development to add future functionality. It is noted however, that the monitoring software developed and used under the ENWORKS programme is part of wider programme support involving professional advice and assistance to SMEs. As a result, it cannot be considered as a stand-alone product to be used without appropriate support for identifying relevant opportunities for cost and resource savings.

Potential Cost and Resource Savings on Public and Private Investments RPA | iii

Résumé analytique

Nécessité de l’étude

L’objectif de cette étude est de fournir des preuves pour informer les discussions sur un plan d’investissement possible pour les PME, dans le cadre du Programme UE pour la croissance verte et l’emploi, et l’exercice semestre européen 2015. La justification de l’étude se repose sur l’importance accordée à l’efficacité de ressources comme un outil pour promouvoir le développement durable, comme le reconnaissent le cadre politique de l’UE et les différentes initiatives au niveau des États membres.

Une étude précédente menée par Risk and Policy Analysts (RPA, 2014), qui a été publié par DG-Environnement de la CE au début de 2014, a évalué la possibilité d’économiser les couts de ressources au niveau de l’entreprise relié aux programmes de soutien aux entreprises destiné aux PME dans toute l’Europe.

La présente étude se fonde sur les principales conclusions de RPA (2014).

Objectifs de l’étude

Cette étude évalue les avantages possibles de la mise en œuvre des programmes de soutien aux entreprises dans les États membres destinés aux PME qui investissent dans l’efficacité de ressources. À RPA (2014), le programme ENWORKS au Royaume-Uni a été identifié comme ayant adopté une approche particulièrement efficace de travailler avec PME sur les questions d’efficacité de ressources. Grâce à son système complet de collecte de données, il a été décidé d’utiliser les données du programme sur les économies de couts et de ressources pour extrapoler les économies possibles qui pourraient être fait si des programmes similaires étaient mis en œuvre dans tous les États membres. Les avantages possibles ont été estimés à l’égard de:

Réduction des couts grâce à l’investissement dans les mesures d’efficacité de ressources, basé sur scenarios hypothétiques qui modélisent la mise en œuvre d’un programme de type ENWORKS dans toute l’UE;

Réductions possibles dans l’utilisation de ressources par PME soutenues par un tel programme;

Effets possibles sur l’emploi (emplois créés et sécurisés) dans les PME dans toute l’UE grâce au soutien fourni par ces types de programmes;

La possibilité de déployer l’outil logiciel de surveillance en ligne ENWORKS dans toute l’UE.

L’analyse se concentre sur quatre secteurs économiques: aliments et boissons; construction; énergie, alimentation, et services publiques; et technologie environnementale.

Approche de l’étude

Deux approches principales ont été utilisées pour calculer les économies de ressources et les économies des coûts possibles dans les quatre secteurs PME :

Approche économies estimées: calcule les économies qui pourraient être réalisées via un investissement public de €4 milliards basées sur le cout relatif de la mise en œuvre des programmes de type ENWORKS dans les États membres; elle fait également des hypothèses

Potential Cost and Resource Savings on Public and Private Investments RPA | iv

concernant les niveaux de référence de l’efficacité de ressources qui peuvent exister dans tous les 28 États membres de l’UE; et

Approche validation: mesure les économies de couts qui pourraient être fait si un investissement de €11 milliards du secteur privé dans les mesures d’efficacité de ressources est exploité via un mélange de (co)financement, prêts et autres instruments financiers.

Une fois que les économies de couts avaient été estimées, les réductions associées dans l’utilisation de ressources et les effets possibles sur l’emploi ont également été calculées.

Des données sur les résultats du soutien ENWORKS, et des informations relatives au logiciel de surveillance en ligne ont été recueillies via une vaste consultation avec les gestionnaires de projet ENWORKS.

Les principales conclusions

En vertu de la première approche, qui calcule les économies de couts qui pourraient être réalisé par un investissement public de €4 milliards, il a été estimé que le total des économies de couts de ressources de €8.7 milliards/an dans les 28 membres de l’UE pourrait être réalisé.

La deuxième approche validation, qui avait supposé que l’investissement public mobiliserait un montant supplémentaire de €11 milliards de l’investissement privé, crée des économies de couts plus de trois fois plus élevées que celles estimées en utilisant la première approche (c’est à dire €32.8 billion par an). Toutefois cette estimation plus élevée doit être interprétée avec prudence, car il ne tient pas compte explicitement des niveaux sous-jacents d’efficacité de ressources.

En termes de réduction de l’utilisation de ressources, les résultats indiquent que les économies pourraient être importantes. Par exemple, l’investissement pourrait conduire à 181,3 millions de tonnes de déchets détournés des sites d’enfouissement chaque année. De même, il pourrait également conduire à une réduction de l’utilisation de 1,7 milliards de tonnes de ressources matérielles par an. En fin, les résultats indiquent qu’environ 128 000 emplois pourraient être créés comme un avantage indirect des gains d’efficacité de ressources induits; cela s’élève à 268 000 dans l’autre scénario. En outre, les résultats impliquent qu’il y aura une sauvegarde de 360 000 emplois supplémentaires, qui auraient été autrement perdus.

Enfin, concernant la possibilité de déployer l’outil ENWORKS en ligne de l’efficacité de ressources dans tous les 28 membres de l’UE, pas de couts importants devraient être engagés par les entreprises utilisant cet outil, et l’utilisation d’un tel outil dans les autres États membres ne devrait pas faire face à des obstacles techniques majeurs. Les couts pour la mise en œuvre de telles mesures pour suivre les résultats du soutien à un programme devraient refléter celles du programme ENWORKS. Le plus importants de ces couts étant environ €18 600 par an pour la maintenance des logiciels, licences et secure socket layers (SSL), €18,600-€24,180 pour l’hébergement du serveur et un budget variable pour le développement de logiciels pour ajouter fonctionnalités futures. Cependant, il est à noter que le logiciel de surveillance élaboré et utilisé en vertu du programme ENWORKS fait partie un programme de soutien plus large comprenant de conseils professionnels et de l’aide aux PME. En conséquence, il ne peut pas être considéré comme un produit autonome à utiliser sans le soutien approprié pour identifier les opportunités pertinentes pour les économies de couts et de ressources.

Potential Cost and Resource Savings on Public and Private Investments RPA | v

Zusammenfassung

Notwendigkeit dieser Studie

Das Ziel dieser Studie ist es, Belege für eine Diskussion über einen potentiellen Investierungsplan für KMUs zu liefern im Rahmen der EU Agenda für grünes Wachstum und Arbeitsplätze und des Europäischen Semesters 2015. Das Grundprinzip dieser Studie basiert auf der Bedeutung welche von Materialeffizienz als ein Werkzeug für die nachhaltige Entwicklung ausgeht. Dies wurde auch im politischem Rahmen der EU Gesetzgebung und in verschiedenen nationalen Initiativen auf der Ebene der Mitgliedsstaaten anerkannt.

Eine vorherige Studie (RPA, 2014), welche von Risk & Policy Analysts durchgeführt wurde und von der Generaldirektion Umwelt der Europäischen Kommission Anfang 2014 veröffentlicht wurde, hat das Potential für Kosteneinsparungen durch Materialeffizienz auf der Unternehmensebene, verbunden mit Programmen zur Unternehmensförderung welche auf KMUs in Europa ausgericht waren, bewertet.

Die vorliegende Studie baut auf den Ergebnissen der RPA Studie von 2014 auf.

Zielsetzung dieser Studie

Diese Studie bewertet die potentiellen Vorteile welche von einer Umsetzung der Unternehmensförderungsprogramme ausgehen. Diese finden in der gesamten EU statt und sind auf KMUs ausgerichtet welche in Materialeffizienz investieren. In der RPA Studie von 2014 wurde das ENWORKS Programm des Vereinigten Königreichs als ein besonders effektiver Ansatz ausgewählt welcher mit KMUs an Materialeffizienzproblemen arbeitet. Als Folge seines umfassenden Datensammlungssystem wurde beschlossen die Daten über Kosten- und Materialeinsparungen dieses Programms zu verwenden um die potentiellen Einsparungen zu berechnen welche möglichweise erzielt werden könnten wenn ähnliche Programme in allen Mitgliedsstaaten umgesetzt würden. Mögliche Vorteile wurden im Bezug auf die folgenden Punkte geschätzt:

Kosteneinsparungen durch Investitionen in Materialeffizienmaßnahmen basierend auf hypothetischen Szenarien welche die Umsetzung von ENWORKS-typischen Programmen in der EU erstellen;

Mögliche Materialeinsparungen von KMUs welche durch ein solches Programm gefördert werden;

Potentielle Beschäftigungsauswirkungen (Beschäftigungsmöglichkeiten schaffen und erhalten) in KMUs in der EU als eine Folgen von der Unterstützung welche von dieser Art an Programmen ausgeht;

Die Möglichkeit die ENWORKS Online Überwachungssoftware in der gesamten EU einzuführen.

Diese Analyse konzentriert sich auf vier Wirtschaftsbereiche: Nahrungsmittel und Getränke; Baugewerbe; Energieversorgung; und Umwelttechnologie.

Ablauf der Studie

Zwei Hauptansätze wurden verwendet um die potentiellen Material- und Kosteneinsparungen in den vier KMU Sektoren zu berechnen:

Potential Cost and Resource Savings on Public and Private Investments RPA | vi

Ansatz der geschätzen Einsparungen: Berechnet die Kosteneinsparungen welche durch eine öffentliche Investition von €4 Milliarden erreicht werden könnten basierend auf den relativen Kosten welche von der Umsetzung der ENWORKS-typischen Programme ausgehen in einzelnen Mitgliedsstaaten. Dieser Ansatz stellt auch Vermutungen auf im Bezug auf das Basisniveau von Materialeffizienz welches in den 28 EU Mitgliedsstaaten möglicherweise existiert; und

Ansatz der Validierung: Misst die Kosteneinsparungen welche erzielt werden könnten wenn Materialeffizienzmaßnahmen durch eine €11-Milliarden Investierung des Privatsektors durch eine Mischung an (Ko)-Finanzierungen, Krediten und andere finanzielle Maßnahmen aufgebaut werden könnte.

Nachdem Kosteneinsparungen geschätzt wurden, konnten die damit verbundenen Einsparungen in Materialverbrauch und die potentiellen Auswirkungen auf die Beschäftigungssituation berechnet werden.

Daten über die Auswirkungen der Unterstützung durch das ENWORKS Programm im Bezug auf die Online-Überwachungssoftware wurden durch umfangreiche Konsultationen mit den ENWORKS Projekt-Managern gesammelt.

Wesentliche Ergebnisse

Durch die Verwendung des ersten Ansatzes, mit welchem die Kosteneinsparungen berechnet werden welche durch eine öffentliche Investition von €4 Milliarden zustande kommen könnten, wurde eine gesamte Materialkosteneinsparung von € 8.7 Milliarden/Jahr in der gesamten EU geschätzt.

Der zweite Ansatz, hat die Annahme, dass öffentliche Investitionen zu weiteren €11 Milliarden an privaten Investitionen führen könnten, erbringt Kosteneinsparungen welche mehr als dreimal so hoch sind wie die Einsparungen welche mit dem ersten Ansatz berechnet wurden (d.h. €32.8 Milliarden pro Jahr). Jedoch sollten die höheren Schätzungen mit Vorsicht interpretiert werden da es nicht ausdrücklich die zugrunde liegenden Ebenen der Materialeffizienz mit einberechnet.

Im Bezug auf Materialeinsparungen zeigen die Ergebnisse signifikante Einsparungen auf. Zum Beispiel, könnten die Investitionen dazu führen das 181.3 Millionen Tonnen an Abfall nicht auf der Mülldeponie landen. Ebenso könnte dies auch zu einer Einsparung von 1.7 Milliarden Tonnen an Materialien führen. Als letzter Punkt zeigen die Ergebnisse das umgerechnet 128,000 Arbeitsplätze geschaffen werden könnten als ein indirekter Vorteil der herbeigeführten Materialeffizienzeinsparungen; diese würden auf 268,00 Arbeitsplätze ansteigen unter dem anderen Szenario. Zudem, deuten die Ergebnisse darauf hin das zusätzlich 360,000 Arbeitsplätze erhalten werden könnten welcher andernfalls verloren gehen.

Schlussendlich, werden keine signifikanten Kosten, für die Firmen welche die ENWORKS Materialeffizienzsoftware verwenden, in der EU erwartet wenn das Programm in der gesamten EU eingeführt werden sollte. Die Einführung dieser Software lässt keine großen technischen Hürden erwarten. Es wird angenommen das die Kosten der Umsetzung von solchen Maßnahmen für die Überwachung der Ergebnisse der Unterstützung durch ein solches Progamm ähnlich zu denen des ENWORKS Programm sein werden. Die Hauptkosten von rund €18,600 pro Jahr ergeben sich aus der Wartung der Software, Lizenz und Secure Software Layers (SSL), €18,600-€24,180 für die Serverbereitstellung und ein variables Budget für Software-Entwicklung um weitere Funktionen bereitzustellen. Es wurde jedoch bemerkt, dass das Überwachungsprogramm welches in dem ENWORKS Programm entwickelt und verwendet wurde Teil eines größeren Programms ist welches die KMUs professionell berät und diese auch bei der Umsetzung der Maßnahmen unterstützt.

Potential Cost and Resource Savings on Public and Private Investments RPA | vii

Infolgedessen kann das Programm nicht als ein eigenständiges Produkt angesehen werden welches ohne die angemessene Unterstützung, um die relevanten Einsparmöglichkeiten von Kosten und Material zu erkennen, verwendet werden kann.

Potential Cost and Resource Savings on Public and Private Investments RPA | viii

Table of contents

1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Aim of the Study ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Structure of the report .................................................................................................................... 5

2 Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 6

2.1 Data collection ................................................................................................................................ 6

2.2 Modelling of the resource efficiency cost savings ........................................................................ 11

2.3 Modelling of reduction in resource use ........................................................................................ 20

2.4 Modelling of jobs created/secured ............................................................................................... 21

3 Overview of SME sectors .................................................................................................... 25

3.1 Sector context ............................................................................................................................... 25

3.2 SME characteristics in selected countries ..................................................................................... 26

4 Results ............................................................................................................................... 29

4.1 Task 1: Savings aggregated at the Individual Member and EU-28 levels across four SME sectors 29

4.2 Other resource efficiency programmes with the EU .................................................................... 41

4.3 Task 2: Savings aggregated for the four individual sectors at the EU-28 and individual Member State levels ............................................................................................................................................ 46

5 Task 3: Up-scaling the ENWORKS Monitoring Approach ....................................................... 54

5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 54

5.2 The Online Resource Efficiency Toolkit structure ......................................................................... 54

5.3 Functionality ................................................................................................................................. 55

5.4 User interface, Data entry, and branding ..................................................................................... 56

5.5 IT support and associated costs .................................................................................................... 57

5.6 Training ......................................................................................................................................... 58

5.7 SWOT analysis of the ENWORKS Toolkit ....................................................................................... 58

5.8 Concluding remarks ...................................................................................................................... 60

6 Overall findings .................................................................................................................. 62

6.1 Summary of main findings ............................................................................................................ 62

6.2 Limitations of the report ............................................................................................................... 63

7 Bibliography ....................................................................................................................... 65

Potential Cost and Resource Savings on Public and Private Investments RPA | ix

Annex 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 66

7.1 Reductions in resource use for individual Member State by Sector ............................................ 66

Potential Cost and Resource Savings on Public and Private Investments RPA | 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Aim of the Study

The aim of this study is to provide evidence to underpin a potential investment plan for SMEs, which would form part of the wider EU Agenda for Green Growth and Jobs. It does this by assessing whether small, targeted investments in EU Member States could lead to multiplier effects by simultaneously improving EU business competitiveness and reducing pressure on the environment while also addressing the increasing scarcity of raw materials.

The study will also provide input for the European Semester 2015 exercise.

1.2 Background

1.2.1 Policy Framework

Europe faces a dual challenge of stimulating growth to provide jobs and well-being to its citizens while ensuring that the quality of its growth leads to a sustainable future (EU Commission, 2011). Resource efficiency is instrumental for decoupling economic growth from the consumption of natural resources and to promoting sustainable development (Van der Voet, 2005). This is recognised in the EU-28 policy framework and on different initiatives at the Member State level.

The Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, launched in 2010, provides the EU's growth strategy for the coming decade. The strategy seeks to ensure that the EU economy delivers high levels of employment, productivity and social cohesion in a sustainable way. It sets out objectives in the fields of employment, innovation, education, social inclusion and climate/energy, which are to be achieved by 20201. To catalyse progress, seven flagship initiatives have been proposed by the European Commission. The most relevant communications related to resource efficiency from these flagship strategies include:

Innovation Union flagship initiative

The Resource Efficient Europe flagship initiative and The Resource Efficiency Roadmap

Communication on ‘Tackling the Challenges in Commodity Markets and on Raw Materials’

Communication on ‘Making raw materials available for Europe’s future well-being: Proposal for a European innovation partnership on raw materials’

Communication on ‘Innovative and sustainable forest-based industries in the EU – a contribution to the EU’s Growth and Jobs Strategy’

EU Commission Communication ‘Small Business Act’. The overall goal of the initiative and its relevant policies is best summarised by the European Commission:

“it is necessary to develop new products and services and find new ways to reduce inputs, minimise waste, improve management of resource stocks, change consumption patterns, optimise production processes, management and business methods, and improve logistics. This

1 EC (2013), Europe 2020 website, online resource accessed at:

http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm


will help stimulate technological innovation, boost employment in the fast developing 'green technology' sector, sustain EU trade, including opening up new export markets, and benefit consumers through more sustainable products2”.

In 2014, Jean Claude Juncker announced his agenda for an investment plan worth €300 billion to stimulate growth, investment, competitiveness and jobs within the EU3. The agenda has emphasised that new, sustainable and job-creating projects are required to help restore Europe’s competitiveness. Within this context, DG Environment has recognised that targeting resource efficiency in small and medium size enterprises (SMEs) could address some of the issues included in the agenda through promoting efficiency savings and subsequent job creation/securement.

1.2.2 Past studies

A number of past studies that have attempted to assess the potential for resource efficiency savings at the sectoral and European levels were identified in the RPA (2014) study. For instance, the COWI (2011) study identified two schemes that can be considered to provide hands-on direct support to SMEs to make improvements in terms of resource efficiency: the PIUS-CHECK Programme in Germany and the National Industrial Symbiosis Programme in the UK. The results for both of these programmes were extrapolated to the EU-27 levels, and are presented in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1: Programme outcomes

Programme Description Savings/benefits

PIUS-Check (Produktionsintegrierter Umweltschutz), Germany

Launched in 1998 by the North Rhine-Westphalia Ministry, the Effizienz-Agentur (EFA) initiative has developed a toolbox with a range of consulting services to assist SMEs to improve resource conservation in production.

Estimated €333,000 in economic benefits to participating SMEs over 10 years. Extrapolating EU27-wide, based on same share of manufacturing SMEs benefitting from a PIUS-check, economic benefits would be €776 million.

National Industrial Symbiosis Programme, UK

Free to business advice and networking programme aimed at reducing waste by partnering waste producers with waste users.

Applying a similar system across the EU27 would generate €1,411 million in cost savings and additional sales for participating companies of €1,591 million.

Source: RPA (2014) based on information from COWI (2011)

Studies such as AMEC (2013) and Oakdene Hollins (2011) have assessed the potential for resource efficiency savings at the sectoral levels in the EU-27 and UK respectively. For example, AMEC (2013) provides estimates of potential gross annual benefits (i.e. not taking into account the investment costs required to achieve the resource efficiency savings) at both the EU27 level and the firm level. These estimates are shown in Table 1-2 below.

2 EC (2011), A resource-efficient Europe – Flagship initiative under the Europe 2020 Strategy COM (2011) 21.

3 ‘A New Start for Europe: My agenda for Jobs, Growth, Fairness and Democratic Change. Political guidelines

for the next European Commission’ 15 July 2014, accessed at http://ec.europa.eu/about/juncker-commission/docs/pg_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/about/juncker-commission/docs/pg_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/about/juncker-commission/docs/pg_en.pdf


Table 1-2: Benefits of implementing resource efficiency measures

Sector Annual benefit (EU27)

€ billions

Average Annual Benefit (per company)

€ 000s / % avg. turnover

Food & Drink Manufacturing €64 - 118 €424 (11%)

Fabricated Metal Products €44 – 82 €164 (17%)

Hospitality and Food Services €18 - 43 €27.5 (27.5%)

Source: RPA (2014) based on information from AMEC (2013)

However, the AMEC report notes that the difference in the levels of savings for each of the sectors is, in part, down to the fact that the average size of companies in each sector differs significantly and that the estimated savings assume that all measures identified are implemented by companies. In this sense, the estimates are likely to be overestimates, particularly for SMEs. The report also notes that larger companies will benefit from a greater proportion of the overall benefits identified, although smaller companies may gain proportionally more (in terms of their own turnover, for example) than larger ones from action on resource efficiency.

1.2.3 RPA Study on the EU Semester

In 2014, RPA carried out a study for the European Commission (DG Environment) titled the ‘Study on Economic and Social Benefits of Environmental Protection and Resource Efficiency Related to the European Semester’. The second task of the study set out to achieve two objectives:

to identify the key success factors involved in the provision of more hands-on, direct support to SMEs for improving resource efficiency, and

to utilise this and broader information on SME support to assist in estimating more accurately the potential economic and environmental savings as well as the costs of providing such support.

To meet the second objective, the study extrapolated savings data from the ERDF funded ENWORKS programme in the UK to other Member States. Four indices based on comparative data for water, energy, material and waste efficiency were calculated for each of the Member States, with the UK set as the base. The savings data from the ENWORKS programme were then weighted for each country based on their relative index scores. The final analysis covered four broad sectors: construction; food and beverages; energy, power and utilities; and environmental technologies. The annual cost savings were calculated at the firm level and are displayed in Table 1-3Table . These savings were also calculated in terms of the volumes of resources saved due to resource efficiency measures.

Overall the task identified 230+ programmes providing general and bespoke support to SMEs to implement measures to become more efficient, resulting in lower costs, energy and water use, and decreased waste and CO2 emissions. It also found that investment in support programmes can generate 10-20 times its value in cost and environmental savings. Lastly, the modelling component of the task showed that significant potential savings could be made across the EU (as

shown in Table 1-3).


Table 1-3: Cost savings per business (SMEs) due to resource efficiency measures

Member State

Average (2004-9) resource

productivity (UK base)

Savings per business (€)4 Companies

taking action in terms of material efficiency

Energy, power and

utilities

Food and drink

Environmental technologies

Construction

Austria 0.5176 €9,709 €17,339 €23,640 €12,487 63%

Belgium 0.6734 €12,630 €22,556 €30,754 €16,244 62%

Bulgaria 0.2175 €4,080 €7,286 €9,934 €5,247 38%

Croatia 0.4280 €8,027 €14,336 €19,546 €10,324 44%

Cyprus 0.3514 €6,591 €11,771 €16,049 €8,477 34%

Czech Republic 0.4307 €8,079 €14,428 €19,671 €10,390 66%

Denmark 0.4481 €8,406 €15,012 €20,467 €10,811 45%

Estonia 0.2717 €5,097 €9,102 €12,410 €6,555 34%

Finland 0.3087 €5,790 €10,341 €14,099 €7,447 80%

France 0.7802 €14,635 €26,136 €35,634 €18,822 41%

Germany 0.7309 €13,710 €24,484 €33,382 €17,632 61%

Greece 0.5665 €10,627 €18,978 €25,875 €13,667 68%

Hungary 0.4136 €7,758 €13,856 €18,891 €9,978 53%

Ireland 0.3014 €5,653 €10,096 €13,764 €7,270 46%

Italy 0.7664 €14,375 €25,673 €35,002 €18,488 40%

Latvia 0.2801 €5,254 €9,383 €12,792 €6,757 61%

Lithuania 0.4464 €8,374 €14,955 €20,389 €10,770 55%

Luxembourg 1.0909 €20,462 €36,542 €49,822 €26,316 61%

Malta 1.8385 €34,484 €61,585 €83,966 €44,350 50%

Netherlands 1.1472 €21,518 €38,428 €52,393 €27,674 65%

Poland 0.3463 €6,495 €11,600 €15,815 €8,354 56%

Portugal 0.4078 €7,649 €13,661 €18,625 €9,838 85%

Romania 0.2155 €4,043 €7,220 €9,844 €5,200 60%

Slovakia 0.4642 €8,707 €15,550 €21,202 €11,199 77%

Slovenia 0.4265 €8,001 €14,288 €19,481 €10,290 27%

Spain 0.5234 €9,817 €17,533 €23,904 €12,626 91%

Sweden 0.5622 €10,545 €18,832 €25,676 €13,562 58%

UK 1 €18,757 €33,498 €45,672 €24,124 71%

Source: RPA (2014)

4 Figures calculated based on ENWORKS data in £. An average ECB £/EUR exchange rate for the period

between 6 January 2004 and 29 December 2008 was used (i.e. 1 EUR is £ 0.70451): http://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/exchange/eurofxref/html/eurofxref-graph-gbp.en.html.

http://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/exchange/eurofxref/html/eurofxref-graph-gbp.en.html


1.3 Structure of the report

The remainder of this report has been organised into four broad sections. Section 2 describes the methodology used to calculate the potential resource savings and subsequent employment impacts of the proposed investment. This section lists the sources of data used alongside the assumptions made in the analysis. It also discusses difficulties faced in terms of gaps in the available data and the robustness of the assumptions that have been applied.

Section 3 provides an overview of the SMEs sector across the EU-28, and some selected Member States, representative in terms of geographic and size balance. The distribution of some of the key variables is described, with a focus on the four sectors under analysis; this includes the number of enterprises, employment, and turnover. The overall goal of this section is to show how the selected SME sectors are more concentrated towards labour-intensive sectors such as construction, rather than the utilities sector.

The results of the analysis are presented in Section 4. This section is set out in three parts. The first and second parts present the outputs for Tasks 1 and 2 respectively. Task 1 presents the expected resource cost savings, reduction in resource use and jobs created/secured as combined aggregates for the four selected sectors at the EU-28 and individual Member State levels. On the other hand, Task 2 presents the same outputs in terms of each individual sector (per Member State and at the EU-28 level).

The third part presents some examples of existing resource efficiency programmes across the EU-28 taken from RPA (2014). The section also briefly describes the distribution of such programmes across the Member States, and reviews the results of these programmes in terms of the cost savings made, reductions in resource use and the numbers of jobs created/safeguarded.

Section 5 investigates the possibility of up-scaling the monitoring software used by the ENWORKS programme to other EU Member States. To this end, a SWOT analysis is conducted to identify the overall costs of implementing the system as well as the critical factors that will determine its success or failure.

Section 6 brings together the results from the analysis and weighs up the costs of the investment against its potential benefits. It also identifies potential issues within the work, in terms of the assumptions made, instances of missing data and the sectors analysed.


2 Methodology

2.1 Data collection

2.1.1 Resource efficiency

The main dataset for analysis is taken from RPA (2014). Using different resource efficiency indices, the study extrapolated cost and resource savings from the ENWORKS programme in the UK to each Member State (see Table 1-3). The dataset contains figures on annual resource efficiency cost savings as well as savings in energy, water, material resources and waste covering. The figures are presented for all EU-28 Member States; however, data for water use savings in Croatia and waste savings in Bulgaria and the Netherlands are missing. The data are taken from the period 2004-9 in order to account for the two periods of recession that occurred within the EU-28 after the financial crisis. Currently, the European Commission forecasts that the real GDP growth rate of the EU-28 will reach 1.3% by the end of 20145. It further expects growth to increase to 1.5% and 2.0% in the years 2015 and 2016 respectively. Thus, including, data from the period 2004-9 is more likely to represent the overall picture in the coming years as the average growth rate for these six years was 1.22%6. Nonetheless, it should be noted that many Member States have experienced significant structural changes since the period 2004-9 and growth rates still remain low in some areas. The applicability of the results in different Member States should therefore be treated with caution.

One of the main issues with the RPA (2014) dataset is that the cost savings reflect prices from the period 2004-9 using an average exchange rate over the period of €1 = 0.70451. As the exchange rate and price level have changed significantly since this period, it was necessary to recalculate the figures in terms of more recent price levels. The cost savings presented in Table 1-3 were therefore recalculated in 2013 equivalent values using a GDP deflator index from Eurostat7 and average exchange rates from HM Revenue and Customs8. The revised figures are given in Table 2-1 below.

To further improve the breadth and precision of the data, direct consultation has taken place with the ENWORKS programme. Through this process, more sector specific data has been gathered in terms of the level of investments made by SMEs as a result of the programme, as well as the resulting resource efficiency cost savings. The consultation has also provided data on the number of jobs created and secured within each sector that have occurred due to the programme’s assistance. Data have also been sought from the programme on the total level of expenditure on assistance for SMEs and the number of SMEs assisted. These data have allowed for a relationship to be modelled between the level of public expenditure necessary to induce investments within SMEs and the subsequent resource efficiency savings and jobs created/secured.

5 European Commission, 2014 Autumn Economic forecast: Slow recovery with very low inflation, Brussels, 4

November 2014 accessed at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-1362_en.htm on 10/12/14 6 Based on real GDP growth rate data from Eurostat, calculation includes six years from 2004-9. In 2009, real

GDP growth was -4.5% and potentially biases the result, excluding this year brings average growth to 2.36% across the period 2004-8.

7 Price converted using a GDP deflator of 1.179146205 [(Q1-Q3 2013) / (Q1 2004 – Q4 2008)], data taken

Eurostat website (year 2000 = 100), accessed at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=teina110 on 15/12/14

8 HM Revenue and Customs, Exchange Rates – Yearly List, accessed at

www.hmrc.gov.uk/exrate/exchangerates-1314.pdf on 10/12/14

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-1362_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=teina110

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/exrate/exchangerates-1314.pdf


Table 2-1: Annual cost savings per business (SMEs) due to resource efficiency measures recalculated using 2013 prices and average exchange rate

Member State



Savings per business (€)9

Energy, power and utilities

Food and drink Environmental technologies

Construction

Austria 0.5176 € 9,504 € 16,973 € 23,142 € 12,224

Belgium 0.6734 € 12,364 € 22,081 € 30,106 € 15,902

Bulgaria 0.2175 € 3,994 € 7,132 € 9,725 € 5,136

Croatia 0.4280 € 7,858 € 14,034 € 19,134 € 10,106

Cyprus 0.3514 € 6,452 € 11,523 € 15,711 € 8,298

Czech Republic 0.4307 € 7,909 € 14,124 € 19,256 € 10,171

Denmark 0.4481 € 8,229 € 14,696 € 20,036 € 10,583

Estonia 0.2717 € 4,990 € 8,910 € 12,148 € 6,417

Finland 0.3087 € 5,668 € 10,123 € 13,802 € 7,290

France 0.7802 € 14,326 € 25,585 € 34,883 € 18,425

Germany 0.7309 € 13,421 € 23,968 € 32,678 € 17,260

Greece 0.5665 € 10,403 € 18,578 € 25,330 € 13,379

Hungary 0.4136 € 7,594 € 13,564 € 18,493 € 9,768

Ireland 0.3014 € 5,534 € 9,883 € 13,474 € 7,117

Italy 0.7664 € 14,072 € 25,132 € 34,264 € 18,098

Latvia 0.2801 € 5,143 € 9,185 € 12,522 € 6,615

Lithuania 0.4464 € 8,197 € 14,640 € 19,959 € 10,543

Luxembourg 1.0909 € 20,031 € 35,772 € 48,772 € 25,761

Malta 1.8385 € 33,757 € 60,287 € 82,196 € 43,415

Netherlands 1.1472 € 21,064 € 37,618 € 51,289 € 27,091

Poland 0.3463 € 6,358 € 11,355 € 15,482 € 8,178

Portugal 0.4078 € 7,488 € 13,373 € 18,232 € 9,631

Romania 0.2155 € 3,958 € 7,068 € 9,636 € 5,090

Slovakia 0.4642 € 8,523 € 15,222 € 20,755 € 10,963

Slovenia 0.4265 € 7,832 € 13,987 € 19,070 € 10,073

Spain 0.5234 € 9,610 € 17,163 € 23,400 € 12,360

Sweden 0.5622 € 10,323 € 18,435 € 25,135 € 13,276

UK 1 € 18,362 € 32,792 € 44,709 € 23,615

Source: Derived from RPA (2014) Notes: Price converted to 2013 values using a GDP deflator of 1.179146205 (Q1-Q3 2013 / Q1 2004 – Q4 2008) and an average annual exchange rate for the year 2013 of £1= €1.178398113 (01.01.2013 – 31.12.2013)

2.1.2 SMEs in the four selected sectors

The DG Enterprise Annual Report on European SMEs10 dataset has been used to provide information on SMEs across the four sectors within the EU-28 and individual Member States. The dataset covers a broad range of indicators for each Member State by broad one and two digit NACE codes. These indicators include the number of enterprises and employees in each SME sector, as well as levels of gross value added, turnover, personnel costs, investment and gross operating surplus. While estimates for most countries were available up until 2015, the study used data from 2014 to

9 Figures calculated based on ENWORKS data in £. Values converted using exchange rate for the year 2013 (£1

= €1.1783981132075) from HM Revenue and Customs – Yearly List, accessed at: www.hmrc.gov.uk/exrate/exchangerates-1314.pdf on 15/12/14

10 Database for the annual report, accessed at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/facts-figures-

analysis/performance-review/index_en.htm on 10/12/14


http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/facts-figures-analysis/performance-review/index_en.htm



represent the current situation within Europe. The key indicators taken from the dataset were the number of SMEs and employees in each SME sector, and the associated levels of turnover. Based on expert judgement and suggested classifications by Eurostat11, the following NACE codes have been chosen to represent the sectors for the study:

Construction - F41: Construction of building - F42: Civil engineering - F43: Specialised construction activities

Food and Beverages - C10: Manufacture of food products - C11: Manufacture of beverages

Energy, Power and Utilities - D35: Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply - E36: Water collection, treatment and supply

Environmental Technologies - E37: Sewerage - E38: Waste collection, treatment and disposal activities; materials recovery - E39: Remediation activities and other waste management services.

Data on the number of SMEs in each sector were largely available for each country in the year 2014. In terms of missing data, Greece was the only country that lacked information on the number of SMEs and gross value added in the Energy, Power and Utilities12 and Environmental Technologies13 sectors. This meant that resource cost savings could not be calculated for Greece in these sectors.

Information from another DG Enterprise dataset was also used in this study. The SBA Fact Sheets database14 provides data on a number of indicators for SMEs in particular countries. Broadly, the fact sheets compile data on indicators such as entrepreneurship, the environment, skills and innovation, and public procurement. The main focus of this study was on the indicators for the environment. Data was extracted from each individual Member State’s fact sheet on the proportion of SMEs that have benefitted from public support measures for resource efficiency actions. Data was available for each country and for the year 2014.

2.1.3 Other data sources

A number of supporting data sources were consulted in order to carry out the final analysis. For instance, purchasing price parities (PPPs) from Eurostat were gathered for each Member State for the latest available year – 2013. The PPPs selected were based on ESA95 aggregate prices for

11

Environmental goods classification based on information from the ‘Data Collection Handbook on Environmental Goods and Services Sector Final Draft’ ICEDD for Eurostat – Unit E3

12 NACE Rev.2 codes D35 and E36

13 NACE Rev.2 codes E37, E38 and E39

14 European Commission, DG Enterprise, SBA Fact Sheet Database, accessed at:

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/facts-figures-analysis/performance-review/index_en.htm on 10/12/14



government services15, which consider the prices of collective and individual public services in each country. Collective public services comprise the expenditures made by general government on services that benefit households collectively; examples include public order and safety, economic affairs and environment protection. Health, education and social protection are examples of individual public services that households purchase for themselves and which NPISHs16 and general government provide to specific identifiable households. As such services rarely have a market price; the PPPs generated by Eurostat are based on the costs of provision and inputs, with a focus on labour cost17. This category was chosen because the ENWORKS programme is a publicly funded programme that provides advisory services to SMEs on how to increase resource efficiency. The PPPs based on government services were therefore selected to provide some insight on the possible cost of implementing ENWORKS-type programmes in other EU Member States.

In addition, data on the average annual exchange rates between the UK pound sterling and other national currencies were collected from the HM Revenue and Customs website18. The data were collected for the year 2013, to be in line with the PPPs gathered for the same year. Other sources, such as the Bank of England and European Central Bank, were also consulted to ensure the rates were consistent.

2.1.4 Identified data issues

The assessment relies heavily on data taken from the RPA (2014) study. As noted by that study, the predicted savings figures should be taken as indicative, i.e. they only provide an indication of the magnitude of potential savings that could be achieved as a result of participation in an ENWORKS-type programme. Furthermore, the calculations are based on carefully monitored outcomes resulting from the delivery of the ENWORKS programme in the North West of the UK. Thus, whilst it may be possible to design a programme similar to ENWORKS in another Member State, it would not be possible to replicate it identically. The degree of uncertainty therefore increases when such figures are applied to Member States at the aggregate level. However, it was agreed with the Commission for the previous RPA (2014) study that data from ENWORKS programme is the most comprehensive set of data available.

2.1.5 Summary of data sources

Table 2-2 provides a summary of the key indicators and data sources used in the assessment. In general, data collection methods have comprised both desk research and consultation (i.e. with the ENWORKS programme). Where possible, the study has attempted to use the most recent available data to ensure that the final analysis is robust in its conclusions.

15

Eurostat, Purchasing Price Parities, accessed at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/purchasing_power_parities/data/database on 10/12/14

16 Non-profit Institutions Serving Households

17 Eurostat-OECD Methodological Manual on Purchasing Power Parities, Eurostat Methodologies and Working

Papers, 2012 Edition 18

HM Revenue and Customs, Exchange Rates – Yearly List, accessed at www.hmrc.gov.uk/exrate/exchangerates-1314.pdf on 10/12/14

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/purchasing_power_parities/data/database



Table 2-2: Identified Data Sources, Indicators and Uses

Source Key Indicators Use(s)

RPA (2014)

Cost savings per business (SMEs) due to resource efficiency measures (€)

The basis for calculating the cost and resource savings across SMEs in different European countries

Energy, Material, Water and Waste Savings per Business (SMEs) due to resource efficiency measures (quantity/year)

DG Enterprise – Database for Annual Report on European SMEs

Number of SMEs per NACE division and country

Used to generate aggregate values for the cost and resource savings per sector and Member State. It will also be used to assess the potential employment effects of such savings

Gross operating costs per NACE division and country

Number of employees in SMEs per NACE division and country

Value added at factor costs per NACE division and country

DG Enterprise – SBA Fact Sheets for Member States

SMEs that have benefited from public support measures for their resource efficiency actions (%)

Used to form the baseline for the model and will be used to assess where public investments could be most effective

ENWORKS

Expenditure of the programme in terms of SMEs assisted Data used for establishing a

relationship between investments made per SME and the resulting cost savings. Also used to determine the coverage of the ENWORKS-type programmes in other Member States

Number of SMEs assisted

Numbers of jobs created/secured

Average investment per SME assisted

Average cost saving resulting from investment by SME

Eurostat Purchasing Price Parities Used to calculate the relative cost of implementing an ENWORKS-type programme in other Member States

HM Revenue and Customs Exchange rates Used to assist in the process of calculating the relative cost relative cost of implementing an ENWORKS-type programme in other Member States using PPPs from Eurostat


2.2 Modelling of the resource efficiency cost savings

2.2.1 Overview of the approach

For the calculation of resource cost savings a three stage approach has been implemented. Firstly, the maximum potential resource cost savings that could be realised if all SMEs in the sectors per Member State benefitted from an ENWORKS-type programme are estimated. It is assumed in this approach that the roll out of an ENWORKS-type programme across individual Member States is not limited by the size of public funding. Furthermore, it is assumed that the resulting cost savings are not compounded by existing levels of resource efficiency.

After this initial set of calculations the methodology applies some more realistic assumptions regarding the size of the public investment and the baseline levels of resource efficiency. The overall coverage of the proposed €4 billion public investment is estimated for each Member State and sector in terms of SMEs assisted. Here, the cost of implementing ENWORKS-type programmes in each Member State is taken into account. Moreover, the approach uses data from the SBA Fact Sheets to make some assumptions on existing levels of resource efficiency per Member State. These assumptions are then used to estimate the number of SMEs that, once assisted by an ENWORKS-type programme, will benefit from resource efficiency cost savings.

However, it should be noted that the proposed investment plan comprises two elements. Firstly, the plan consists of a public investment worth €4 billion - €3 billion EIB investments and €1 billion EU investment. This plan is expected to leverage, based on the Commission’s past experience with EU and EIB investments, an additional €11 billion in private investment. The public investment is expected to comprise a mix of (co)funding, loans and other financial instruments. However, the above approach does not explicitly account for the €11 billion private sector investment. This is because the original RPA (2014) dataset does not provide an unequivocal link between private sector investment in resource efficiency measures and the subsequent cost savings. Instead, it assumed that the roll-out of ENWORKS-type programmes across the EU-28 will leverage private sector investment and thus lead to the resulting cost savings.

As a result, a validation approach has also been used. This validation approach uses new data provided from detailed discussions with ENWORKS to establish a direct link between investments in resource efficiency measures by private companies and the resulting cost savings. In this approach, we assume that the public sector investment leverages the €11 billion in private sector investment using a variety of instruments. This leveraged private sector investment is then translated into resource cost savings using the data provided by the ENWORKS programme for each sector. The results from this approach will allow for a relative comparison between the roll-out of an ENWORKS-type programme across the EU and leveraging of private investment through traditional methods.

The three primary approaches can thus be summarised as follows:

Maximum potential savings: Estimates the total resource cost savings that could be realised if all SMEs across the EU-28 benefitted from an ENWORKS-type programme and made the subsequent cost savings given in RPA (2014)

Estimated savings: Calculates the cost savings that could be realised by €4 billion public investment based on the relative cost of implementing ENWORKS-type programmes in individual Member States; it also makes assumptions regarding the baseline levels of resource efficiency that may exist across the EU-28 Member States, and


Validation approach: Measures the cost savings that could be made if an €11 billion private sector investment in resource efficiency measures was leveraged through a mix of (co) funding, loans and other financial instruments.

2.2.2 Maximum potential savings

Key assumptions made

The first stage of this assessment measured the potential savings that could be realised if all SMEs implement resource efficiency measures, i.e. all SMEs receive direct support. For this initial assessment a number of key assumptions are made, including:

1) ENWORKS-types programmes are rolled out across all Member States and all SMEs in the four listed sectors; individual Member States are provided with direct support

2) All SMEs are willing to participate in the programme and make the necessary investments to realise resource efficiency savings

3) The ENWORKS-type programme is reproduced in all Member States in a manner which ensures the same levels of realised savings and jobs secured/created per business per € invested

4) SMEs in the Member States are not already benefitting from other resource efficiency programmes, and

5) SMEs in Member States do not display a high baseline level of energy efficiency.

It should be noted that the aim of this set of calculations is to capture the potential level of savings that could be realised across the EU-28 if every SME was assisted by an ENWORKS-type programme, assuming that they are willing to participate in the programme and have not been targeted by any other programmes. It should be noted that, at this stage, the size of the investment has not been taken into account.

Clearly these assumptions are overly optimistic. For instance, the previous RPA (2014) study highlights a number of factors that may influence companies’ willingness to take up more or fewer actions to improve resource efficiency, including:

a company’s historical performance with respect to resource efficiency and its current “baseline” level

a company’s internal financial situation

general economic conditions and market demand

differing levels of competition within sectors and across Member States

differing industry structures and their scale across Member States

access to different resources/technologies

availability of external finance, and

general attitudes to resource efficiency and the environment. Nevertheless, this initial assessment provides an upper limit to the benefits of resource efficiency that could be realised due to a wide scale implementation of the ENWORKS-type programme. It also provides a basic model upon which more realistic assumptions and factors can be included in the further analysis to be undertaken.


Calculation of maximum potential cost savings

Using the dataset on resource cost savings from RPA (2014) and the numbers of SMEs in the four selected sectors for each Member State, the total efficiency savings are calculated at the aggregate levels for the EU-28, individual Member States and the four selected sectors. The respective cost saving in each sector is applied to the corresponding number of SMEs for each individual Member State, and from these the aggregate cost savings estimates are derived. With the exception of the Energy, Power and Utilities and Environmental Technologies sectors in Greece, the aggregate values contain inputs from each sector and individual Member State.

2.2.3 Estimated resource cost savings

Determining coverage

This scenario asks the broad question: how many ENWORKS-type projects could be funded by a €4 billion public investment across the EU-28? During the period 2004-9, data received from the ENWORKS programme show that the programme spent around £10.9 million assisting 2,402 SMEs to implement resource efficiency measures (see Table 2-3). This means that the average cost of assisting an SME was approximately £4,522 – this includes the direct expenditure that ENWORKS pays to its consultants providing advice to SMEs, as well as the apportioned amount of overheads.

However this expenditure is in terms of 2004-9 prices; it is therefore necessary to transform the value into a 2013 equivalent. Using price indices from Eurostat, an average price level has been calculated for the period 2004-9 and compared to the average level for 2013. These indices have then been used to transfer the value into a 2013 equivalent, which is equal to £5,33319.

Table 2-3: Total expenditure and SMEs assisted by the ENWORKS Programme 2004-9

Sector Expenditure Number of SMEs assisted

All £10,862,982

(£12,809,0441)

2,402

Construction - 229

Food and beverages - 220

Energy, Power and Utilities - 16

Environmental Technologies - 37

Source: Direct consultation with the ENWORKS Programme 1

Recalculated in 2013 prices

To apply this to the EU-28 level, it is necessary to take into account differences in price levels between Member States, as it may cost more/less to implement an ENWORKS-type programme in the different countries. As a result, Purchasing Price Parities (PPPs) from Eurostat have been used in order to determine the value of £5,333 in real terms for other Member States. As stated in Section 2.3.1, the PPPs are based on the relative prices of government services in each Member State, with

19

Price converted using a GDP deflator of 1.179146205 [(Q1-Q3 2013) / (Q1 2004 – Q4 2008)], data taken Eurostat website (year 2000 = 100), accessed at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=teina110 on 15/12/14

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=teina110


the EU-28 level set as the base. For this study, the PPPs were recalculated with the UK level set as the base.

To calculate the cost of assisting a SME in real terms for each Member State, the initial pound sterling value (£5,333) was converted into the equivalent national currencies using average annual exchange rates taken from HM Revenue and Customs for the year 2013. This generated the national expenditure associated with assisting a SME in each Member States. These national expenditures were then transformed to real expenditures in terms of the Purchasing Power Standard (PPS) – an artificial currency unit in which values are expressed after being adjusted for price level differences. An index was then generated using the PPS values with the UK level set as the base (i.e. re-based to the UK = 1 rather than the EU-28 = 1). The cost of assisting a SME was then derived using this index. Table 2-4 presents the figures used to derive the cost per SME assisted in each Member State.

The values show that the relative cost of implementing an ENWORKS-type programme and assisting a SME is likely to be much higher in some countries (e.g. Luxembourg, Denmark and Sweden) while in others it theoretically should be significantly lower (e.g. Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria and Poland). Using the SME data from DG Enterprise it was then possible to calculate the total cost (in terms of PPS) of implementing an ENWORKS-type programme to assist all SMEs in the four selected sectors.

The next issue was to decide how to apportion the €4 billion public investment between the individual Member States. A simple methodology was applied based on calculation of the percentage of SMEs in each country out of the total EU number for the sector. This meant that countries with a higher number of SMEs per sector received a larger proportion of the available funding. Ideally, the investment would seek to ensure allocative efficiency, i.e. funding is directed to those countries and sectors where the returns would be the highest. Such an approach was not adopted as it was considered important to account for political factors that may determine the final allocation of any such investment. We have thus assumed that weighting the investment by the relative number of SMEs in each Member State and sector is a simple and apolitical allocation method. It will also ensure that the results of the assessment are relatively conservative in nature.

Lastly, the total investment was converted into PPS at the EU-28 level (EU-28 = 1). The investment apportioned to each country was then used to determine the total number of SMEs that could be assisted in each Member State given the expected costs of undertaking one ENWORKS-type project in each country.

Factoring in the baseline level of resource efficiency investments

The methodology then builds on the above calculations and factors in the baseline level of resource efficiency investments implemented by SMEs in the Member States. Data on the proportion of ‘SMEs that have benefited from public support measures for their resource-efficiency actions’ from the SBA Fact Sheets are used here as a proxy for the baseline number of SMEs that have already benefitted from resource efficiency measures. It is reasonable to assume that such SMEs would not realise the full benefits of an ENWORKS-type programme, as they would face diminishing returns when making further investments in resource efficiency measures. As a conservative approach, we have assumed that the effectiveness of ENWORKS-type programmes across Member States depends in part on the proportion of SMEs that have already benefitted from public support measures. Thus, the analysis assumes that if 45% of the SMEs in Austria have already benefitted from such measures then only 55% of SMEs assisted by an ENWORKS-type programmes will benefit from resource efficiency savings.


Table 2-4: PPPs and the relative cost of assisting a SME in each Member State

Country National Expenditure (national currency)

PPPs (national currency per PPS_UK)

Real Expenditure (PPS)

Index (UK = 1) Cost per SME assisted (PPS)

Austria 6,284 1.47 4,285 0.80 6,636

Belgium 6,284 1.48 4,242 0.80 6,704

Bulgaria 12,291 0.56 21,773 4.08 1,306

Croatia 47,576 4.27 11,149 2.09 2,551

Cyprus 6,284 0.98 6,385 1.20 4,454

Czech Republic 162,688 15.32 10,620 1.99 2,678

Denmark 46,864 12.67 3,700 0.69 7,686

Estonia 6,284 0.59 10,728 2.01 2,651

Finland 6,284 1.38 4,548 0.85 6,253

France 6,284 1.30 4,850 0.91 5,863

Germany 6,284 1.18 5,323 1.00 5,343

Greece 6,284 0.83 7,588 1.42 3,748

Hungary 1,863,501 133.74 13,933 2.61 2,041

Ireland 6,284 1.36 4,618 0.87 6,158

Italy 6,284 1.19 5,298 0.99 5,367

Latvia 6,284 0.49 12,867 2.41 2,210

Lithuania 6,284 1.55 4,066 0.76 6,994

Luxembourg 6,284 1.93 3,250 0.61 8,749

Malta 6,284 0.69 9,161 1.72 3,104

Netherlands 6,284 1.32 4,773 0.90 5,958

Poland 26,340 2.00 13,149 2.47 2,163

Portugal 6,284 0.82 7,635 1.43 3,725

Romania 27,757 1.47 18,866 3.54 1,507

Slovakia 6,284 0.52 12,066 2.26 2,357

Slovenia 6,284 0.80 7,829 1.47 3,632

Spain 6,284 0.96 6,521 1.22 4,361

Sweden 54,270 14.34 3,785 0.71 7,513

United Kingdom 5,333 1.00 5,333 1.00 5,333


Table 2-5: SBA Fact Sheet Data – Environment, 2013

Percentage of SMEs that have taken resource-efficiency

measures

Percentage of SMEs that have benefited from public support measures for their resource-

efficiency actions

Austria 97 45

Belgium 97 43

Bulgaria 86 47

Croatia 95 64

Cyprus 73 52

Czech Republic 93 52

Denmark 89 19

Estonia 58 70

Finland 88 54

France 93 43

Germany 95 48

Greece 91 52

Hungary 91 16

Ireland 97 36

Italy 95 15

Latvia 89 57

Lithuania 84 52

Luxembourg 93 42

Malta 97 41

Netherlands 95 45

Poland 92 40

Portugal 98 46

Romania 89 23

Slovakia 95 64

Slovenia 90 56

Spain 99 24

Sweden 94 35

UK 99 39

EU 95 35

Source: SBA Fact Sheets database accessed at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/facts-figures-analysis/performance-review/ on 03/11/14

Other proxy variables were also considered. For instance, the SBA Fact Sheets also provide data on the proportion of SMEs that have undertaken resource-efficiency measures. However, the data show that a high proportion of SMEs in the Member States have already implemented some form of resource efficiency measure (See Table 2-5 above). For instance, the average level across the EU-28 shows that 95% of SMEs have already implemented some resource efficiency measure. Unfortunately, the data do not provide information on the types of measures implemented. At such a higher percentage, it is therefore reasonable to expect that the figures in Table 2-5 include the implementation of small or minor resource efficiency measures and therefore do not accurately reflect the baseline level of resource efficiency potential that could be realised across SMEs.

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/facts-figures-analysis/performance-review/

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/facts-figures-analysis/performance-review/


For this study, we have therefore decided to use the proportion of ‘SMEs that have benefited from public support measures for their resource-efficiency actions’ as a proxy. The decision to use this variable was based on the strong assumption that public support measures (such as the ENWORKS programme) induce the implementation of more far reaching resource efficiency measures than SMEs would undertake on their own. Consequently, SMEs that have benefitted from such support would have a higher level of resource efficiency than non-supported SMEs; as a result, they are unlikely to be able to gain as much in efficiency savings and thus investments from further measures would display diminishing returns.

Calculation of potential reduction in resource use and cost savings

Using the same methodology described in Section 2.2.2, the cost savings and overall reductions in resource use were calculated using the new figures for the number of SMEs covered by the investment in each Member State and Sector. Outputs were once again provided in terms of the total cost savings made by SMEs across the four sectors, as well as the reductions in the use of energy, water and material resources, and waste.

One of the key limitations of this approach is that it assumes that the results of the ENWORKS programme can be extrapolated to other Member States, i.e. that cost savings per unit of funding would be realised at the same rate across all Member. Although price differences have been taken into account, there may be other factors that hamper the success of similar programmes in other Member States. These may include governance and institutional factors that affect the implementation of such programmes, or labour supply issues i.e. a shortage of skilled resource efficiency advisors.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the SBA Fact Sheet data is not sector specific. As a result, there could be wide variations in the number of SMEs in the different sectors that have benefited from public support measures towards resource-efficiency actions in the past. For example, it may be the case that a wide-scale resource efficiency programme has been implemented in one sector while in another it has not. This would clearly affect the effectiveness of an ENWORKS-type programme being applied in either sector.

It is also possible that those who have previously benefitted from public support measures in the past may be more willing to participate in future programmes. For instance, such SMEs may be located in resource intensive industries with greater total potential cost savings to be made. Likewise, those SMEs that haven’t benefitted from public support measures in the past may be located in sectors where the potential resource efficiency savings are low. However, without further disaggregation of this indicator, it is not possible to account for these factors.

As a result, the findings from this step (presented in Section 4.2.1) should be treated as purely indicative of the magnitude of savings that could be made given a broad range of assumptions.

2.2.4 Validation approach

The relationship between investment in resource efficiency measures and subsequent cost savings

While the calculations presented above (Approach 1) were based on the relationship between public sector investment and resource efficiency savings, this second approach factors in the level of private sector investment that the specifications have mentioned will be leveraged from the €4 billion private sector investment. As stated in Section 2.2.1, the private sector investment is viewed as a single component in this scenario. It is assumed that the public sector investment has leveraged through conventional means €11 billion in private sector investments to implement resource


efficiency measures. The key issue is therefore to develop a relationship between investments made by SMEs and the resulting resource efficiency cost savings.

Working closely with the ENWORKS programme, data have been collected on the average level of investment20 and resulting cost savings due to assistance provided by the programme. The levels for the four selected sectors are presented in Table 2-6. Furthermore, the table shows the implied return on investment for a £1 investment in resource efficiency measures.

Table 2-6: Investment and Cost Savings per SME in each Sector, 2004-2009

Sector Investment Achieved per business

Cost Savings Achieved per business (annual)

Return on Investment (ROI)

Food & Beverages £4,233

(£4,991)

£10,099

(£11,909)

£2.39


£1,731

(£2,041)

£13,049

(£15,386)

£7.54

Environmental Technologies

£379 (£447)

£8,126

(£9,582)

£21.43

Construction £1,256

(£1,481)

£4,473

(£5,274)

£3.56

Source: Direct consultation with the ENWORKS Programme

Notes: Values in parentheses are converted to 2013 prices using Eurostat GDP Deflator Index (year 2000 = 100)

Table 2-6 indicates that the returns on investment for the Food and Beverages and Construction sectors are significantly lower than the returns in the Energy, Power and Utilities and Environmental Technology sectors. For instance, the return in the Environmental Technologies sector is almost nine times higher than that for the Food and Beverages sector.

The next step is to extrapolate these ROIs to the Member States. Due to the limited time available for this exercise the resource efficiency index constructed in RPA (2014) was applied to the ROIs in Table 2-6. These ROIs were then then subsequently converted to Euros21. The final ROIs for each Member State and Sector are presented in Table 2-7.


Member State



ROI per business (€)


Food and beverages


Construction

Austria 0.5176 € 4.60 € 1.46 € 13.07 € 2.17

Belgium 0.6734 € 5.98 € 1.89 € 17.00 € 2.83

Bulgaria 0.2175 € 1.93 € 0.61 € 5.49 € 0.91

Croatia 0.4280 € 3.80 € 1.20 € 10.81 € 1.80

Cyprus 0.3514 € 3.12 € 0.99 € 8.87 € 1.48

Czech Republic 0.4307 € 3.83 € 1.21 € 10.87 € 1.81

Denmark 0.4481 € 3.98 € 1.26 € 11.31 € 1.88

20

Investment by the business in implementing recommendations made by ENWORKS

21 Using exchange rate for the year 2013 from HM Revenue and Customs – Yearly List, accessed at

www.hmrc.gov.uk/exrate/exchangerates-1314.pdf (£1 = € 1.1783981132075) 15/12/14




Member State



ROI per business (€)


Food and beverages


Construction

Estonia 0.2717 € 2.41 € 0.76 € 6.86 € 1.14

Finland 0.3087 € 2.74 € 0.87 € 7.79 € 1.30

France 0.7802 € 6.93 € 2.19 € 19.70 € 3.27

Germany 0.7309 € 6.49 € 2.06 € 18.45 € 3.07

Greece 0.5665 € 5.03 € 1.59 € 14.30 € 2.38

Hungary 0.4136 € 3.67 € 1.16 € 10.44 € 1.74

Ireland 0.3014 € 2.68 € 0.85 € 7.61 € 1.27

Italy 0.7664 € 6.81 € 2.15 € 19.35 € 3.22

Latvia 0.2801 € 2.49 € 0.79 € 7.07 € 1.18

Lithuania 0.4464 € 3.96 € 1.26 € 11.27 € 1.87

Luxembourg 1.0909 € 9.69 € 3.07 € 27.54 € 4.58

Malta 1.8385 € 16.33 € 5.17 € 46.42 € 7.72

Netherlands 1.1472 € 10.19 € 3.23 € 28.97 € 4.82

Poland 0.3463 € 3.08 € 0.97 € 8.74 € 1.45

Portugal 0.4078 € 3.62 € 1.15 € 10.30 € 1.71

Romania 0.2155 € 1.91 € 0.61 € 5.44 € 0.90

Slovakia 0.4642 € 4.12 € 1.31 € 11.72 € 1.95

Slovenia 0.4265 € 3.79 € 1.20 € 10.77 € 1.79

Spain 0.5234 € 4.65 € 1.47 € 13.22 € 2.20

Sweden 0.5622 € 4.99 € 1.58 € 14.20 € 2.36

UK 1 € 8.88 € 2.81 € 25.25 € 4.20

Source: Derived from data supplied by the ENWORKS programme Notes: Values converted using exchange rate for the year 2013 (£1 = €1.1783981132075) from HM Revenue and Customs – Yearly List, accessed at: www.hmrc.gov.uk/exrate/exchangerates-1314.pdf on 15/12/14

Calculation of total SME cost savings in the sectors

In order to calculate the total cost savings that could be realised by SMEs, the public investment was apportioned to the Member States and Sectors based on the methodology set out above (i.e. by the relative percentage of SMEs within a sector falling in each country). However, in this case, no assumptions are made with regards to the cost of implementing the investment. This is because we are assuming that the leveraging of private investment in resource efficiency measures takes place by traditional means (i.e. a mix of co-funding, loans and other financial instruments) and not through the wide scale implementation of ENWORKS-type programmes.

The apportioned public investment in each Member State and respective sector was scaled up by a factor of 2.75 to calculate the levels of induced private investment. This factor is based on the Commission’s previous experience with EU and EIB investments as stated in the specifications:

3 bn € EIB investments could generate 9 bn private investments, and Ibn EU investment could generate 2 bn private investments; together this is 4 bn public and 11 bn private investments.

After the private sector investment for each Member State and Sector was calculated, the ROIs derived in Table 2-7 were applied in order to generate the resource cost savings. Due to the limited time period for this exercise, data for the reduction in resource use associated with an investment



was not sourced directly from the ENWORKS programme. Nevertheless, the outputs from this scenario provide broad resource cost savings in terms of the EU-28, individual Member States and for the four selected sectors as a whole.

To test the robustness of the investment, we have also assumed a lower multiplier effect in a second set of calculations. In this calculation we have assumed an arbitrary multiplier of 0.5. As a result, the initial €4 billion public investment only generates €2 billion in subsequent private sector investment. The aim of this calculation is to discover whether the total resource cost savings still outweigh the initial public sector investment when low levels of private sector investment are generated.

2.3 Modelling of reduction in resource use


The approach uses a similar methodology to that used for calculating resource cost savings. Firstly the maximum potential savings are calculated by applying figures from RPA (2014) to the total number of SMEs per Member State and sector. Next, the same assumptions regarding the coverage of the €4 billion investment are applied along with those made on the existing levels of resource efficiency.

For this approach a validation methodology is not applied. This is because the broad data requirements and limited timescale do not allow for the full completion of such a task, i.e. linking private investments to the resulting reductions in energy, material and water use. The methodology therefore only explicitly takes into account the proposed €4 billion public investment element and assumes that this leads to direct reductions in resource use. The two approaches used are described in the following sections.

2.3.2 Maximum potential savings

In order to calculate the maximum potential reduction in resource use, figures from the RPA (2014) study for savings in energy, water, material resources and waste are applied to the number of SMEs in the corresponding sectors. Aggregate figures are then derived for the EU-28, the individual Member States, and the four sectors as a whole. The outputs are given in terms of the resource savings that could be made per year, i.e. the kilowatt hours and CO2 that could be saved annually as a result of assistance provided to SMEs by an ENWORKS-type programme (see Table 2-8).

Table 2-8: Reduction in resource use indicators

Resource SME resource savings indicator

Energy Energy savings per business(kwh/year)

Energy savings per business (tonnes CO2/year)

Material Unit savings per business (tonnes/year)

Water Savings from reduction in water usage per business (m3/year)

Waste Savings from diversion of waste from landfill per business (tonnes/year)

Source: RPA (2014)


2.3.3 Estimated reduction in resource use

In order to account for the size of the €4 billion public sector investment and existing levels of resource efficiency, the same assumptions made in Section 2.2.3 are taken into account. The total reductions in resource use are then recalculated using the revised estimates of SMEs benefitting from cost savings as a result of ENWORKS-type programme support and the RPA (2014) dataset. The figures are provided again in terms of reduced energy, material and water use, as well as the total amount waste diverted from landfill.

2.4 Modelling of jobs created/secured


To calculate the number of jobs created and secured through the proposed investment, a three stage approach is once again adopted. Firstly, the maximum potential jobs created and secured are estimated using the ratios derived from data supplied through discussions with ENWORKS. These ratios are applied to the total number of SMEs per Member State and sector. After this, the same ratios are applied to the numbers of SMEs assisted by and benefitting from the €4 billion public sector investment (as estimated in Section 2.2.3).

To further improve the accuracy of the estimates, a separate validation approach has been implemented. This approach uses turnover to employment ratios to estimate the number of jobs created in each sector per Member State. These ratios are then applied to the cost savings estimates generated using the approach in Section 2.2.3. However, this methodology only provides broad estimates for the number of jobs created. This is because a number of additional assumptions would have to be made in order to derive the number of jobs secured.

2.4.2 Maximum potential jobs created and secured

The modelling approach for assessing the jobs that would be created or secured through such an investment plan is also based on extrapolation of ENWORKS data. Aggregate data for the period 2004-9 has been provided by the ENWORKS programme on the number of jobs created and secured in SMEs as a result of the programme’s assistance. The ENWORKS programme defines a job created as when:

It is new, i.e. it should not have existed in the region or with that employer in the UK before, and the post is actually filled

It is created as a result of the ENWORKS Programme intervention

It is a permanent job, i.e. it should have a life expectancy of at least 1 year (at appraisal and when claimed), and

It is a full-time equivalent (FTE) post, i.e. it requires undertaking paid work for 30 hours or more per week (part time can be converted to FTE jobs on a pro rata basis or by using the EC approach)22.

Similarly, a job that is secured or safeguarded is defined by the ENWORKS programme when:

22

Eurostat, Statistics Explained, Glossary: Full Time Equivalent, accessed at http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Glossary:Full-time_equivalent_%28FTE%29 on 03/02/15

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Glossary:Full-time_equivalent_%28FTE%29


An existing paid permanent position was forecast as ‘at risk’, but is no longer at risk of being lost within one year, and

The job being safeguarded is as a result of ENWORKS Programme intervention.

Unfortunately, sector specific data was only available for the period after 2009. For consistency, the post 2009 data has been used to derive the number of jobs created/secured in each sector during the 2004-9 period. From these derived data, sector specific ratios have been generated for the number of jobs created/secured per SME assisted by an ENWORKS-type programme (see Table 2-9).

The Table shows that the highest ratio of jobs created and secured per SME assisted was in the Environmental Technology sector. In contrast, no jobs were created per SME assisted in the Energy, Power and Utilities sector.

Table 2-9: Derived estimates of jobs created/secured by ENWORKS programme 2004-9

Sector Number of SMEs assisted

Jobs created Job secured Jobs created to SME

assisted ratio

Jobs secured to SME

assisted ratio

Food and Beverages 220 37 77 0.17 0.35

Energy 16 0 0 0 0

Environmental Tech. 37 10 41 0.27 1.11

Construction 229 51 41 0.22 0.63

Source: Derived from data provided by the ENWORKS programme

The above ratios have been applied to the total number of SMEs in each of the four selected sectors per Member State. This provides an indication of the maximum number of potential jobs that could be created or secured through the wide scale implementation of an ENWORKS-type programme, which assists all SMEs in the EU-28.

2.4.3 Estimated jobs created and secured

In line with the earlier approaches, the estimated numbers of jobs created/secured are derived using the assumptions made on the overall coverage of the €4 billion public investment and existing baseline levels of resource efficiency along with the job ratios derived in the previous section. This provides an indication of the number of jobs that could be created or safeguarded through the roll out of an ENWORKS-type programme using a €4 billion public investment.

An obvious limitation of this approach is that it does not take into account the labour market differences within each Member state, in terms of the current levels of unemployment and the availability of skilled workers. Furthermore, the methodology does not consider the potential for any adverse employment impacts upon the suppliers of resources (i.e. the loss of jobs due to the loss of demand for resources). Nevertheless, it does take into account the factors that may influence the level of jobs/created in each sector due to resource efficiency savings. For instance, in Table 2-9 it can be seen that in the Energy, Power and Utilities sector no jobs have been created for each SME assisted. This could be due the fact that the sector is highly capital intensive, so any savings made may not necessarily be reinvested into new employment. However, it should also be recognised that the sample size for this sector is relatively small.


2.4.4 Validation approach

As a validation approach, a separate methodology has been used to calculate the direct employment effects of the investment. Under this methodology, it has been assumed that resource efficiency savings are translated into direct increases in total revenues. Using data from the DG Enterprise country SME datasets on total revenue and employment by NACE division23, the number of employees per €1,000 in total revenue has been estimated for each Member State and sector. These ratios have then been applied to the resource efficiency savings (calculated using the approaches in Sections 2.2.3 and 2.2.4) per Member State and sector to derive the direct employment effect associated with the investment.

Table 2-10 displays the derived turnover to employment ratios. Malta and Greece were excluded from the analysis due to a lack of consistent data. All the data refers to the year 2014. However, while data on employment and number of enterprises are readily available for 2014, at two digit level the DG Enterprise database provides data on turnover only up to 2011. As a result, the 2011 turnover values were converted to 2014 price levels using GDP deflators for each Member State. This method makes the strong assumption that turnover levels will remain consistent (in terms of the quantity of goods sold) and that only the price level changes. It may therefore be the case that the values are under or overestimated in some instances.

The turnover to employment ratios were then weighted by each sector’s share of the total number of enterprises (across the four sectors). This adjustment was made to take into account the unequal distribution of companies across the four sectors. For example, in the UK’s Food and Beverage sector there are 141,711 employees and the sector’s turnover is € 30,948 million. Over the four sectors, however, Food and Beverage accounts for only 2.7% of the number of enterprises. The turnover/employment weighted ratio is therefore € 5,97624.

Table 2-10: Turnover on Employment weighted ratios – 2014 (€)

Food and beverage Energy Power and

Utilities Environmental Technologies

Construction

Austria 21,877 165,357 12,735 110,242

Belgium 31,503 54,527 6,394 190,507

Bulgaria 9,172 37,355 1,186 33,973

Croatia 7,776 2,588 1,744 44,354

Cyprus 20,503 1,944 5,509 103,456

Czech Republic 4,447 28,923 3,184 59,737

Denmark 11,128 288,010 7,523 124,125

Estonia 5,139 8,377 2,088 69,141

Finland 9,279 34,144 4,828 129,390

France 25,641 38,335 4,502 131,917

Germany 16,761 17,475 3,058 85,599

Hungary 8,088 12,931 2,207 49,254

Ireland 8,980 10,734 2,591 148,221

Italy 27,436 32,419 2,896 127,199

Latvia 5,103 5,904 1,262 41,309

Lithuania 3,250 2,837 819 27,913

Luxembourg 7,490 27,769 2,567 140,240

23

DG Enteprise, Annual Report on European SMEs, available at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/facts-figures-analysis/performance-review/index_en.htm

24 [(€ 30,948 million/141,711)* 0.027]



Table 2-10: Turnover on Employment weighted ratios – 2014 (€)

Food and beverage Energy Power and

Utilities Environmental Technologies

Construction

Netherlands 12,858 18,752 2,641 174,535

Poland 4,831 3,404 1,580 62,065

Portugal 14,128 12,369 1,707 78,068

Romania 5,378 5,098 3,532 33,339

Slovakia 2,409 2,066 376 40,875

Slovenia 8,162 53,091 2,044 77,230

Spain 22,964 64,946 1,439 138,822

Sweden 9,062 24,549 2,804 131,132

UK 5,976 6,246 3,935 148,823

Source: our elaboration based on DE Enterprise database

One benefit of this approach is that it takes into account differences in the productivity levels of employees across the sectors. On the other hand, it will not be possible to disaggregate the results by secured/new employment. Nevertheless, it allows us to validate the results from the initial extrapolation. It also allows us to provide an approximate range for the number of jobs directly created through the investment, of which the lower bound can be taken as a conservative estimate to include in the investment plan.


3 Overview of SME sectors

3.1 Sector context

This section provides an overview of the distribution of SMEs across the four sectors being examined for this study: Food and Beverage, Utilities, Environmental Technologies and Construction. The distribution of variables such as the number of enterprises, employment, and turnover are analysed below, focusing on the EU-28 and some selected countries. It should be noted that this section presents data on the number of SMEs and employment from the year 2013. In contrast, the final assessment uses estimates for the year 2014 provided in the DG Enterprise dataset.

As several studies have remarked, SMEs can be still considered as a key driver of European economic growth. In 2013, in the EU 28 there were 21,614,909 non-financial enterprises, of which 99.8% can be considered as SMEs. As reported in Table 3-1 below, across the four sectors considered in this study, there were 3,428,030 SMEs employing 14,361,120 people, representing 15.9% of European SMEs, and 16.1% of the total employment provided by SMEs across Europe. However, it should also be noted that both the number of enterprises and employment levels are not equally distributed.

The Construction sector accounts for about 88% of total enterprises, followed by Food and Beverage (7.8%). The remaining two sectors together represent 4% of the total number of enterprises. This figure can be attributed to the fact that the energy sector is usually composed of larger companies, compared to the construction sector for example.

Regarding employment, Utilities and Environmental Technologies are more capital intensive than the other two sectors analysed in this study. As a consequence, they account for only the 7.2% of total employment. In contrast, Construction and Food and Beverage represent 73.2% and the 19.5% of total employment respectively.

The last key variable to be considered is turnover, the distribution of which is more balanced across the sectors, although Construction still accounts for a large share (49.7%) of the total turnover, followed by utilities (24.2%) and food and beverage (21.3%).

Table 3-1: EU-28 - SMEs in the selected sectors

Sector NACE code

N. of Enterprises Employment Turnover

no % n

o % € million %

Food and Beverages C10 246,605 7.2% 2,590,810 18.0% 465,386 18.8%

C11 22,366 0.7% 212,233 1.5% 62,530 2.5%

Energy Power and Utilities D35 65,182 1.9% 261,436 1.8% 577,976 23.3%

E36 14,240 0.4% 141,295 1.0% 22,101 0.9%

Environmental Technologies E37 11,498 0.3% 95,822 0.7% 15,114 0.6%

E38 44,056 1.3% 516,492 3.6% 101,284 4.1%

E39 2,986 0.1% 24,978 0.2% 4,143 0.2%

Construction F41 741,463 21.6% 2,817,417 19.6% 425,690 17.2%

F42 89,353 2.6% 920,136 6.4% 142,788 5.8%

F43 2,190,282 63.9% 6,780,506 47.2% 662,963 26.7%

Total 3,428,031 100.0% 14,361,124 100.0% 2,479,973 100.0%

Note: N. of Enterprises and employment refer to 2013; Turnover refers to 2012 Source: DG Enterprise; Eurostat


3.2 SME characteristics in selected countries

The EU-28 trend shown in the above table is also reflected in the distribution of key variables across sectors in some selected Member states, which are representative in terms of geographic location and size: Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, France, Sweden, and Czech Republic. The DG Enterprise database does not provide updated data on turnover at this level of statistical disaggregation, with the most recent available data being for 2011. For this reason, data on the number of enterprises and employment are also for 2011 (rather than 2013 as reported above).

In all the selected economies, Construction is the sector which accounts for the largest share of total enterprises.

Food and Beverage follows the Construction sector in terms of the next largest share of the number of SME enterprises in Germany (11.3%), France (10.7%) and Italy (8.7%), out of the four sectors considered here. In Czech Republic, the food and beverage sector accounts for only 4.2% of the total number of SMEs within the four sectors.

Table 3-2: Number of SMEs: Distribution across sectors in selected countries - 2011

Sector NACE code

Germany UK Italy

no % n

o % n

o %

Food and Beverages

C10 29,678 10.6% 6,189 2.2% 55,106 8.3%

C11 1,982 0.7% 1,005 0.4% 2,856 0.4%

Energy, Power and Utilities

D35 1,604 0.6% 1,192 0.4% 6,503 1.0%

E36 1,652 0.6% 104 0.0% 819 0.1%


E37 1,337 0.5% 892 0.3% 1,395 0.2%

E38 1,726 0.6% 4,907 1.8% 6,040 0.9%

E39 57 0.0% 457 0.2% 554 0.1%

Construction

F41 21,920 7.8% 73,650 26.3% 151,418 22.8%

F42 6,203 2.2% 20,008 7.2% 7,958 1.2%

F43 214,770 76.4% 171,368 61.3% 431,096 64.9%

Total 280,929 100.0% 279,772 100.0% 663,745 100.0%

Sector NACE code

France Sweden Czech Republic

no % n

o % n

o %

Food and Beverages

C10 56,207 10.2% 3,378 3.4% 7,038 3.6%

C11 2,937 0.5% 170 0.2% 1,253 0.6%


D35 16,657 3.0% 1,990 2.0% 5,169 2.6%

E36 3,034 0.6% 211 0.2% 368 0.2%


E37 1,663 0.3% 188 0.2% 405 0.2%

E38 6,647 1.2% 785 0.8% 5,490 2.8%

E39 232 0.0% 113 0.1% 90 0.0%

Construction

F41 34,020 6.2% 20,062 20.4% 33,196 16.9%

F42 5,858 1.1% 1,707 1.7% 2,592 1.3%

F43 423,937 76.9% 69,727 70.9% 140,400 71.6%

Total 551,192 100.0% 98,331 100.0% 196,001 100.0%

Source: DG Enterprise

As already remarked, Utilities and Environmental technologies are more capital intensive compared to the other two sectors included in our analysis. This is also reflected in the distribution of employment across the four sectors in the selected Member states. In the UK, Sweden and the Czech Republic, the Construction sector accounts for a share of total employment higher than the EU-28 average (73.2%). While in France (74%) and Italy (76.9%) the Construction sector represents a


share of employment similar to the EU-28 average, in Germany (69.5%) the figure is slightly below the European average. As expected, Food and Beverage follows the Construction sector in terms of the level of total employment across the six countries.

Table 3-3: Employment: Distribution across sectors in selected countries - 2011

Sector NACE code

Germany UK Italy

no % n

o % n

o %

Food and Beverages

C10 510,956 21.3% 131,273 10.0% 326,146 15.6%

C11 39,258 1.6% 13,282 1.0% 24,474 1.2%


D35 61,344 2.6% 8,675 0.7% 23,590 1.1%

E36 26,511 1.1% 3,222 0.2% 13,468 0.6%


E37 19,499 0.8% 5,563 0.4% 9,802 0.5%

E38 71,069 3.0% 57,395 4.4% 79,708 3.8%

E39 2,221 0.1% 2,017 0.2% 4,147 0.2%

Construction

F41 240,655 10.0% 300,443 22.9% 472,515 22.6%

F42 144,494 6.0% 109,583 8.3% 80,755 3.9%

F43 1,278,605 53.4% 681,843 51.9% 1,053,491 50.5%

Total 2,394,612 100.0% 1,313,296 100.0% 2,088,096 100.0%

Sector NACE code


no % n

o % n

o %

Food and Beverages

C10 415,996 20.6% 33,100 9.7% 7,038 3.6%

C11 24,367 1.2% 1,457 0.4% 1,253 0.6%


D35 8,770 0.4% 14,139 4.1% 5,169 2.6%

E36 9,329 0.5% 1,009 0.3% 368 0.2%


E37 10,053 0.5% 1,898 0.6% 405 0.2%

E38 52,942 2.6% 8,938 2.6% 5,490 2.8%

E39 4,083 0.2% 377 0.1% 90 0.0%

Construction

F41 107,532 5.3% 68,321 20.0% 33,196 16.9%

F42 89,365 4.4% 9,345 2.7% 2,592 1.3%

F43 1,301,864 64.3% 203,819 59.5% 140,400 71.6%

Total 2,024,301 100.0% 342,403 100.0% 196,001 100.0%


In terms of turnover, as expected and in line with the EU-28 average, a more balanced distribution across sectors is observed. With the exception of France (5.1%) and the UK (7.7%), where the Energy, Power and Utilities accounts for a comparatively low share of total turnover, this sector accounts for a share of total turnover above the EU-28 average in particular in Czech Republic (34.3%). In contrast, the Construction sector is more significant in the UK, where it accounts for the 73.3% of total turnover.

In summary, the above analysis indicates that across the four sectors of interest to this study, most of the companies and employment are concentrated in the Construction and Food and Beverage sectors, although some differences can be found across the Member States, due to differences in their underlying productive structures.


Table 3-4: Turnover: Distribution across sectors in selected countries - 2011

Sector NACE code

Germany UK Italy

€ % € % € %

Food and Beverages

C10 73,694 18.1% 27,738 12.5% 74,101 20.1%

C11 9,898 2.4% 2,797 1.3% 12,963 3.5%


D35 123,005 30.2% 16,402 7.4% 79,231 21.4%

E36 6,830 1.7% 839 0.4% 3,338 0.9%


E37 5,821 1.4% 681 0.3% 1,436 0.4%

E38 19,564 4.8% 10,789 4.8% 15,063 4.1%

E39 320 0.1% 289 0.1% 732 0.2%

Construction

F41 36,728 9.0% 57,253 25.7% 72,965 19.7%

F42 18,221 4.5% 24,217 10.9% 19,043 5.2%

F43 112,641 27.7% 81,631 36.7% 90,610 24.5%

Total 406,721 100.0% 222,636 100.0% 369,480 100.0%

Sector NACE code


€ % € % € %

Food and Beverages

C10 85,264 24.2% 8,238 12.1% 6,971 13.2%

C11 12,526 3.6% 426 0.6% 930 1.8%


D35 15,073 4.3% 15,548 22.8% 17,800 33.6%

E36 2,919 0.8% 346 0.5% 358 0.7%


E37 2,051 0.6% 401 0.6% 111 0.2%

E38 15,245 4.3% 2,507 3.7% 2,697 5.1%

E39 686 0.2% 51 0.1% 46 0.1%

Construction

F41 41,470 11.8% 12,714 18.7% 9,234 17.5%

F42 19,304 5.5% 2,309 3.4% 4,121 7.8%

F43 157,561 44.7% 25,583 37.6% 10,631 20.1%

Total 352,100 100.0% 68,123 100.0% 52,900 100.0%



4 Results

4.1 Task 1: Savings aggregated at the Individual Member and EU-28 levels across four SME sectors

4.1.1 Overview

The estimates provided below stem from the methodology set out in Section 2.2.2 and assume that the €4 billion public investment is apportioned to Member States based on the percentage of SMEs in each sector and Member State. The number of SMEs assisted is based on the share of total investment and the relative cost of assisting a SME in each Member State. It further assumes that a proportion of the SMEs assisted will have already benefitted from previous public support measures and will therefore not benefit from the implementation of further resource efficiency measures.

The results for the resource cost savings are presented in terms of the two approaches detailed in Sections 2.2.3 and 2.2.4, both taking into account an initial €4 billion public investment. However, the two approaches make different assumptions on how this investment is spent. The first approach assumes the €4 billion is used to fund ENWORKS-type programmes across the EU-28. In contrast, the second (validation) approach assumes that the €4 billion is used to leverage a total of €11 billion in private sector investment, a ratio that is based on the Commission’s past experience with EU and EIB investments. This private sector investment is then converted into resource cost savings using a relationship derived from data provided by ENWORKS.

Next the savings in terms of the total reduction of resources used are indicated in Section 4.1.3. Savings are presented in terms of energy, CO2 emissions, material resources, water and waste diverted from landfill. Totals are presented for each individual Member State and for the EU-28 as a whole.

Lastly, the indirect employment effects of the resource efficiency measures are considered in Section 4.1.4. Figures are presented for jobs created and jobs secured (broadly defined as a position that was at risk but is now safeguarded due to an ENWORKS-type programme’s intervention). Once again, the results are presented for the Individual Member States and at the aggregate EU-28 level.

4.1.2 Resource cost savings

a) Maximum potential resource cost savings

This first set of results displays the maximum level of savings that could be generated, as well as the jobs that could be created/secured, if all of the SMEs across the EU-28 (in the four selected sectors) were assisted by an ENWORKS-type programme. These initial calculations rely on a broad range of assumptions, as set out in Section 2.2.

At this stage, the size of the proposed investment is not taken into account. The results are intended to provide a tentative indication of the potential benefits that could be realised if the initial public investment was expanded beyond the initial €4 billion set out in the specifications. This set of calculations provides an upper bound to the potential benefits which could be realised, and upon which further assumptions are made in Section 4.2.


Using the methodology set out in Section 2.2.2, the overall potential savings that could be realised, if all SMEs were assisted by an ENWORKS-type programme, have been calculated. Table 4-1 presents the aggregate maximum potential resource cost savings25 for each individual Member State and the EU-28 as a whole for the four sectors covered by this analysis.

Table 4-1: Maximum potential cost savings per Member Sector due to resource efficiency measures (based on four sectors)

Country Number of SMEs in the

four sectors Total Resource Cost Savings

€ % of Total Savings

Austria 39,565 € 510,832,886 0.94%

Belgium 104,273 € 1,721,658,822 3.15%

Bulgaria 24,271 € 136,085,330 0.25%

Croatia 22,359 € 242,563,937 0.44%

Cyprus 5,524 € 49,259,773 0.09%

Czech Republic 189,125 € 1,995,503,590 3.66%

Denmark 37,160 € 395,914,353 0.73%

Estonia 8,904 € 58,757,294 0.11%

Finland 46,935 € 349,110,575 0.64%

France 579,131 € 11,159,617,211 20.45%

Germany 303,228 € 5,482,380,112 10.04%

Greece 38,578 € 578,176,126 1.06%

Hungary 66,933 € 690,409,298 1.26%

Ireland 25,836 € 186,819,912 0.34%

Italy 547,308 € 10,394,585,589 19.05%

Latvia 9,307 € 64,683,130 0.12%

Lithuania 21,220 € 230,971,391 0.42%

Luxembourg 3,511 € 92,717,898 0.17%

Malta 4,399 € 202,426,958 0.37%

Netherlands 132,464 € 3,658,551,797 6.70%

Poland 241,171 € 2,055,555,006 3.77%

Portugal 87,082 € 882,057,185 1.62%

Romania 56,704 € 320,272,615 0.59%

Slovakia 100,914 € 1,125,207,706 2.06%

Slovenia 18,502 € 191,118,941 0.35%

Spain 290,335 € 3,700,787,591 6.78%

Sweden 103,563 € 1,399,380,981 2.56%

UK 275,160 € 6,703,076,404 12.28%

EU-28 3,383,462 € 54,578,482,412 100.00%

From the above table, it can be seen that if resource efficiency measures were implemented across all SMEs in the four sectors, the potential savings could be in the region of €54.6 billion. Across the individual Member States, the highest potential savings could be realised in France, which accounts for 20.45% of the total EU-28 savings. Italy, the UK and Germany could also account for significant proportions of the total savings that could be realised across the EU-28. This is because these countries make up a significant proportion of the total number of SMEs within these sectors; for instance, France alone accounts for 17% of the total SMEs in the four sectors assessed in this study.

25

These savings represent the total level of savings that could be made assuming that all SMEs are assisted by an ENWORKS-type programme. It should be noted that these findings are likely to be an overestimate of the potential savings as they do not take into account the existing level of resource efficiency across the EU-28.


b) Estimated resource cost savings

The results from the first calculation approach, given in Table 4-2 below, show that the resource cost savings that could be realised through the implementation of an ENWORKS-type programme across the EU-28 is approximately €8.7 billion. It can be seen that the €4 billion public sector investment could assist around 975,219 SMEs in the four sectors of which 602,274 would realise resource efficiency cost savings; this equates to around one fifth of the total number of SMEs in these sectors (and takes into account the fact that some SMEs have already benefitted from public support for resource efficiency measures across the Member States).

In contrast to the figures presented in Table 4-1 on the maximum potential savings, the results given in Table 4-2 indicate that the highest resource cost savings could be made in Italy, taking into consideration the cost of implementing an ENWORKS-type programme and a proxy for the baseline level of resource efficiency. France is the next largest country in terms of resource cost savings, followed by the UK, Spain and Germany.

Given that the above estimates are annual savings, the benefits stemming from the €4 billion in funding clearly outweigh the value of that funding (costs).

It is recognised that different SME targeting strategies could influence the effectiveness of the public investment and thus the final level of resource cost savings (i.e. screening and identifying those which have not benefited from previous public support measures). The estimation is thus very conservative in nature as it assumes that a significant proportion of the overall public investment would not be effective in terms of inducing SMEs to implement resource efficiency measures. This is also reflected in the ENWORKS programme itself, which differentiates between opportunities identified and actual savings made.


Table 4-2: Cost savings per Member Sector due to resource efficiency measures (based on four sectors)

Country Number of SMEs

assisted SMEs making cost

savings Total Resource Cost

Savings € % of Total Savings

Austria 7,049 3,877 € 50,053,821 0.58%

Belgium 18,389 10,482 € 173,064,373 1.99%

Bulgaria 21,969 11,644 € 65,284,631 0.75%

Croatia 10,363 3,731 € 40,472,582 0.47%

Cyprus 1,466 704 € 6,276,562 0.07%

Czech Republic 83,502 40,081 € 422,903,555 4.86%

Denmark 5,716 4,630 € 49,325,218 0.57%

Estonia 3,971 1,191 € 7,861,582 0.09%

Finland 8,873 4,082 € 30,361,196 0.35%

France 116,771 66,560 € 1,282,575,083 14.74%

Germany 67,099 34,892 € 630,844,614 7.25%

Greece 12,170 5,842 € 87,549,603 1.01%

Hungary 38,771 32,568 € 335,934,910 3.86%

Ireland 4,960 3,174 € 22,953,198 0.26%

Italy 120,552 102,469 € 1,946,120,873 22.37%

Latvia 4,979 2,141 € 14,878,298 0.17%

Lithuania 3,587 1,722 € 18,740,704 0.22%

Luxembourg 474 275 € 7,266,734 0.08%

Malta 1,675 988 € 45,483,876 0.52%

Netherlands 26,285 14,457 € 399,284,494 4.59%

Poland 131,831 79,099 € 674,176,197 7.75%

Portugal 27,640 14,925 € 151,179,410 1.74%

Romania 44,473 34,245 € 193,418,360 2.22%

Slovakia 50,621 18,224 € 203,195,897 2.34%

Slovenia 6,022 2,650 € 27,370,241 0.31%

Spain 78,713 59,822 € 762,523,390 8.77%

Sweden 16,295 10,592 € 143,122,269 1.65%

UK 61,001 37,211 € 906,481,569 10.42%

EU-28 975,219 602,274 € 8,698,703,239 100.00%

c) Validation approach

This approach assumes that the public sector investment of €4 billion leverages €11 billion in private investment through a mix of (co)funding, loans and other financial instruments (see Section 2.2.4). The public investment is apportioned again using the relative number of SMEs in each Member State and sector. The public investment in each Member State and sector is then scaled up by a factor of 2.75 to estimate the relative amount of leveraged private sector investment. These levels of investment are then converted to resource efficiency cost savings using an indexed return on investment derived from data provided by ENWORKS.

The resource cost savings per individual Member State and sector are listed in Table 4-3. From the table, it can be seen that the leveraged €11 billion investment could result in a resource cost savings of approximately €32.8 billion across the EU-28. This is significantly higher than the cost savings estimated using the first approach. Individual Member States such as France, Italy, the UK and Germany could expect to see the largest savings based on the estimations given in Table 4-3. In total, the resource cost savings per county range from a high of €6.7 billion (France) to a low of €29.9 million (Cyprus).


Table 4-3: Annual cost savings per Member Sector due to resource efficiency measures (based on four sectors)

Country Public sector investment

apportioned Private sector investment

leveraged Total resource cost savings

Austria € 46,774,576 € 128,630,084 € 348,044,772

Belgium € 123,273,736 € 339,002,773 € 1,002,155,914

Bulgaria € 28,693,687 € 78,907,640 € 82,327,643

Croatia € 26,433,280 € 72,691,521 € 148,137,524

Cyprus € 6,530,589 € 17,959,120 € 29,897,729

Czech Republic € 223,587,556 € 614,865,779 € 1,315,353,263

Denmark € 43,931,334 € 120,811,169 € 267,344,311

Estonia € 10,526,496 € 28,947,865 € 36,321,384

Finland € 55,487,545 € 152,590,749 € 217,442,671

France € 684,660,859 € 1,882,817,363 € 6,718,087,884

Germany € 358,482,525 € 985,826,943 € 3,112,677,863

Greece € 45,607,724 € 125,421,240 € 267,786,243

Hungary € 79,129,602 € 217,606,404 € 415,742,372

Ireland € 30,543,863 € 83,995,623 € 112,482,039

Italy € 647,039,039 € 1,779,357,356 € 6,043,008,099

Latvia € 11,002,931 € 30,258,061 € 42,314,849

Lithuania € 25,086,731 € 68,988,509 € 140,346,110

Luxembourg € 4,150,778 € 11,414,640 € 57,100,429

Malta € 5,200,590 € 14,301,624 € 122,225,751

Netherlands € 156,601,729 € 430,654,755 € 2,157,622,401

Poland € 285,117,433 € 784,072,941 € 1,292,105,564

Portugal € 102,950,174 € 283,112,977 € 501,027,293

Romania € 67,036,662 € 184,350,822 € 210,074,601

Slovakia € 119,302,655 € 328,082,302 € 661,630,816

Slovenia € 21,873,454 € 60,151,998 € 123,570,728

Spain € 343,240,149 € 943,910,409 € 2,253,680,813

Sweden € 122,434,359 € 336,694,486 € 853,965,514

UK € 325,299,944 € 894,574,847 € 4,224,958,355

EU-28 € 4,000,000,000 € 11,000,000,000 € 32,757,432,934

In order to test the robustness of the above estimates, the results were recalculated to determine the break-even point in terms of the public sector investment multiplier (i.e. where public and private sector investment are equal to resource cost savings). It was found that this multiplier was equal to approximately 0.5126, which is significantly lower than the multiplier of 2.75 used in the previous estimation27.

Table 4-4: Robustness test of annual cost savings per member state




Austria € 46,774,576 € 23,648,026 € 63,986,367

Belgium € 123,273,736 € 62,324,039 € 184,241,572

Bulgaria € 28,693,687 € 14,506,792 € 15,135,543

Croatia € 26,433,280 € 13,363,989 € 27,234,375

Cyprus € 6,530,589 € 3,301,698 € 5,496,555

26

Actual value is 0.505574349

27 €11 billion ÷ €4 billion = 2.75


Table 4-4: Robustness test of annual cost savings per member state




Czech Republic € 223,587,556 € 113,040,133 € 241,821,407

Denmark € 43,931,334 € 22,210,556 € 49,149,973

Estonia € 10,526,496 € 5,321,926 € 6,677,513

Finland € 55,487,545 € 28,053,079 € 39,975,795

France € 684,660,859 € 346,146,968 € 1,235,088,331

Germany € 358,482,525 € 181,239,569 € 572,250,940

Greece € 45,607,724 € 23,058,095 € 49,231,220

Hungary € 79,129,602 € 40,005,897 € 76,432,247

Ireland € 30,543,863 € 15,442,194 € 20,679,285

Italy € 647,039,039 € 327,126,341 € 1,110,978,141

Latvia € 11,002,931 € 5,562,800 € 7,779,383

Lithuania € 25,086,731 € 12,683,208 € 25,801,961

Luxembourg € 4,150,778 € 2,098,527 € 10,497,641

Malta € 5,200,590 € 2,629,285 € 22,470,620

Netherlands € 156,601,729 € 79,173,817 € 396,668,561

Poland € 285,117,433 € 144,148,061 € 237,547,429

Portugal € 102,950,174 € 52,048,967 € 92,111,472

Romania € 67,036,662 € 33,892,017 € 38,621,211

Slovakia € 119,302,655 € 60,316,362 € 121,637,662

Slovenia € 21,873,454 € 11,058,657 € 22,717,887

Spain € 343,240,149 € 173,533,415 € 414,328,440

Sweden € 122,434,359 € 61,899,671 € 156,997,476

UK € 325,299,944 € 164,463,308 € 776,738,390

EU-28 € 4,000,000,000 € 2,022,297,398 € 6,022,297,398

Note: Leveraged private sector investment based on a multiplier of 0.505574349

4.1.3 Reduction in resource use

a) Maximum potential reduction in resource use

Table 4-5 denotes the annual reductions in resource use that could be realised through the implementation of a wide scale ENWORKS-type programme28. The figures assume that all SMEs in the four selected sectors are assisted by an ENWORKS-type programme and thus are able to achieve reductions in the use of resources. The results suggest that substantial resource savings could be made across the four sectors in the individual Member States and across the EU-28 as a whole. In terms of energy savings, the EU-28 could save approximately 907.3 billion kWh per year while also reducing CO2 emissions annually by around 339.6 million tonnes. Italy and France could expect to make the largest savings in terms of kWh and CO2 emissions.

Material resource savings could also be significant if all SMEs were assisted by an ENWORKS-type programme. Material resources are defined as the total amount of raw materials extracted from the domestic territory of a focal economy, plus all physical imports minus all physical exports. The data show that the EU-28 could save around 10.7 billion tonnes in material resources each year. In

28

These results assume that all SMEs are assisted by an ENWORKS-type programme and benefit from subsequent resource efficiency savings. The size of the public investment and existing level of resource efficiency is not taken into account.


particular, France could achieve the largest savings at around 2.5 billion tonnes per year. The smallest savings would be achieved in Estonia, with annual savings of around 8.6 million tonnes.

There could also be substantial savings in terms of water use across the EU-28, with the analysis predicting that 348.1 million m3 of water could be saved annually if all SMEs benefitted from such a programme. Once again, the savings would be highest in France at around 72.8 million m3 per year, followed by Germany, the UK and Italy. Lastly, the analysis suggests that a considerable amount of waste could be diverted from landfills each year. For the EU-28 as a whole, this reduction could equate to nearly 1.3 billion tonnes of waste annually. It should also be noted that this aggregate annual savings excludes those that could be achieved in three Member States (Bulgaria, Croatia, and Malta) due to missing data. Amongst the individual Member States, waste savings could be highest in Germany at nearly 249.6 million tonnes per year.

a) Estimated reduction in resource use

Table 4-6 denotes the annual reductions in resource use that could be realised through the implementation of a wide scale ENWORKS-type programme from the €4 billion in public investment. The results show that substantial resource savings could be made across the four sectors in the individual Member States and across the EU-28 as a whole. In terms of energy savings, the EU-28 could save approximately 157 billion kWh per year whilst CO2 emissions could also decrease annually by around 58.9 million tonnes. Italy and France could expect to make the largest savings in terms of kWh and CO2 emissions.

Material resource savings could also be significant, with the calculations suggesting that the EU-28 could save around 1.7 billion tonnes in material resources each year. In particular, Italy could make the largest savings at around 446.8 million tonnes per year. In contrast, the figures indicate that the smallest savings could be made be made in Luxembourg, with annual savings of 994,699 tonnes.

There could also be substantial savings in terms of water use across the EU-28. As can be seen from Table 4-6, an estimated 51.3 million m3 of water could be saved annually if all SMEs that have not already undertaken investment benefitted from such a programme. Once again the savings could be highest in France at around 8.4million m3 per year, followed by Italy, Germany and the UK.


Table 4-5: Maximum potential reductions in resource use across the four selected sectors

Country Number of SMEs in the four sectors

Energy savings kWh/year

Energy savings CO2 tonnes/year

Material resource savings tonnes/year

Water use savings m

3/year

Waste savings

tonnes/year

Austria 39,565 11,457,178,491 4,616,829 108,467,546 5,927,522 38,503,898

Belgium 104,273 35,876,162,157 13,010,789 321,242,779 9,334,419 81,061,739

Bulgaria 24,271 6,009,915,934 2,450,632 53,012,194 411,819 ..

Croatia 22,359 4,206,321,654 1,596,831 66,796,215 .. ..

Cyprus 5,524 1,831,082,309 670,458 12,479,402 956,870 409,193

Czech Republic 189,125 67,740,315,489 25,716,551 272,129,587 16,243,772 24,203,165

Denmark 37,160 12,178,511,225 5,105,820 52,595,511 27,836,363 18,423,228

Estonia 8,904 3,255,051,905 1,215,843 8,557,706 86,488 2,826,394

Finland 46,935 17,177,628,836 6,473,931 43,986,964 5,522,530 23,266,957

France 579,131 134,042,188,643 51,242,114 2,562,719,100 72,789,052 246,659,294

Germany 303,228 97,402,238,983 35,818,005 1,295,901,698 50,527,674 249,559,659

Greece 38,578 14,091,808,556 5,289,050 305,542,954 4,854,648 5,633,532

Hungary 66,933 13,507,391,114 4,984,350 154,115,426 2,383,900 11,768,829

Ireland 25,836 10,515,112,800 3,798,067 19,938,717 5,256,279 12,021,471

Italy 547,308 138,792,426,032 51,565,832 2,386,564,068 39,818,283 151,720,094

Latvia 9,307 1,235,502,843 491,308 13,637,354 737,621 665,440

Lithuania 21,220 3,873,924,635 1,449,794 38,376,574 345,552 1,321,088

Luxembourg 3,511 2,419,218,948 898,478 12,691,592 2,400,659 2,253,799

Malta 4,399 853,318,438 313,493 45,313,935 903,910 781,351

Netherlands 132,464 42,447,380,261 15,298,503 459,686,555 6,926,402 ..

Poland 241,171 63,718,143,637 23,375,566 320,882,009 7,605,541 27,070,509

Portugal 87,082 18,336,385,416 6,785,796 217,953,224 3,920,250 18,606,376

Romania 56,704 10,068,102,264 3,861,722 99,959,656 1,995,276 947,717

Slovakia 100,914 23,496,186,137 8,415,418 131,525,879 8,570,754 7,114,229

Slovenia 18,502 5,068,595,853 2,049,696 33,833,657 1,085,680 4,860,678

Spain 290,335 75,174,419,032 29,502,006 767,254,548 17,150,826 124,929,969

Sweden 103,563 19,333,036,899 7,159,217 172,652,176 13,566,105 70,337,676

UK 275,160 73,240,568,875 26,426,208 765,191,491 40,981,502 131,748,616

EU-28 3,383,462 907,348,117,366 339,582,307 10,743,008,517 348,139,697 1,256,694,901


Table 4-6: Potential reductions in resource use across the four selected sectors

Country SMEs making cost savings

Energy savings kWh/year



Water use savings m

3/year

Waste savings

tonnes/year

Austria 3,877 1,122,628,518 452,379 10,628,163 580,807 3,772,794

Belgium 10,482 3,606,339,094 1,307,869 32,291,927 938,313 8,148,478

Bulgaria 11,644 2,883,155,337 1,175,649 25,431,702 197,563 0

Croatia 3,731 701,838,446 266,436 11,145,166 .. 0

Cyprus 704 233,312,097 85,428 1,590,095 121,922 52,138

Czech Republic 40,081 14,356,085,533 5,450,063 57,671,943 3,442,514 5,129,334

Denmark 4,630 1,517,266,836 636,112 6,552,642 3,468,009 2,295,268

Estonia 1,191 435,517,951 162,677 1,145,000 11,572 378,165

Finland 4,082 1,493,891,590 563,020 3,825,426 480,279 2,023,464

France 66,560 15,405,472,072 5,889,257 294,533,370 8,365,648 28,348,559

Germany 34,892 11,207,847,061 4,121,494 149,116,367 5,814,101 28,716,244

Greece 5,842 2,133,834,629 800,888 46,266,463 735,109 853,051

Hungary 32,568 6,572,339,381 2,425,253 74,988,491 1,159,943 5,726,401

Ireland 3,174 1,291,915,123 466,641 2,449,725 645,801 1,476,990

Italy 102,469 25,985,339,677 9,654,386 446,823,215 7,454,957 28,405,716

Latvia 2,141 284,188,163 113,010 3,136,840 169,666 153,063

Lithuania 1,722 314,324,963 117,634 3,113,823 28,038 107,191

Luxembourg 275 189,605,466 70,418 994,699 188,151 176,641

Malta 988 191,734,492 70,440 10,181,714 203,102 175,564

Netherlands 14,457 4,632,592,809 1,669,637 50,168,953 755,929 0

Poland 79,099 20,898,130,017 7,666,664 105,242,142 2,494,448 8,878,523

Portugal 14,925 3,142,748,542 1,163,045 37,355,900 671,908 3,189,023

Romania 34,245 6,080,307,034 2,332,163 60,367,424 1,204,983 572,343

Slovakia 18,224 4,243,064,270 1,519,700 23,751,632 1,547,752 1,284,725

Slovenia 2,650 725,876,187 293,538 4,845,335 155,481 696,100

Spain 59,822 15,489,203,693 6,078,698 158,087,846 3,533,817 25,741,014

Sweden 10,592 1,977,294,347 732,212 17,658,073 1,387,479 7,193,815

UK 37,211 9,904,590,337 3,573,713 103,479,647 5,542,079 17,816,848

EU-28 602,274 157,020,443,661 58,858,425 1,742,843,723 51,299,369 181,311,452


4.1.4 Jobs created and secured

a) Maximum potential jobs created and secured

Table 4-7 presents predictions of the number of jobs that could be created as well as secured if all SMEs in the four selected sectors were assisted by an ENWORKS-type programme across the EU-28. The table shows that in total 720,535 new jobs across the EU-28 could be created as a result of such assistance. A further 2 million jobs could also be secured across the EU-28 as a whole29.

Table 4-7: Maximum potential jobs created/secured using ENWORKS derived ratios

Country Number of SMEs in the four sectors

Jobs created Jobs secured

Austria 39,565 8,037 22,826

Belgium 104,273 22,660 63,652

Bulgaria 24,271 4,754 13,057

Croatia 22,359 4,702 13,173

Cyprus 5,524 1,193 3,356

Czech Republic 189,125 40,377 115,301

Denmark 37,160 7,351 20,806

Estonia 8,904 1,911 5,408

Finland 46,935 10,040 28,452

France 579,131 120,967 338,422

Germany 303,228 64,943 180,995

Greece 38,578 7,892 20,906

Hungary 66,933 14,362 40,380

Ireland 25,836 5,661 16,043

Italy 547,308 117,124 327,493

Latvia 9,307 1,915 5,414

Lithuania 21,220 4,546 12,824

Luxembourg 3,511 756 2,139

Malta 4,399 950 2,674

Netherlands 132,464 29,029 81,994

Poland 241,171 52,344 148,728

Portugal 87,082 18,627 51,879

Romania 56,704 11,905 33,666

Slovakia 100,914 22,198 62,736

Slovenia 18,502 3,747 10,559

Spain 290,335 59,699 166,975

Sweden 103,563 22,304 63,107

UK 275,160 60,544 172,726

EU-28 3,383,462 720,535 2,025,690

Within the individual Member States, the largest number of jobs could be created and secured in France, followed by Italy, Germany, the UK and Spain. However, it should be noted that these figures do not take into account differences in the labour market situations within these countries. The results are therefore purely indicative of the employment effects that could occur if labour market conditions in other Member States were similar to those of the UK. Clearly, this is a simplifying assumption.

29

These calculations assume that all SMEs in the EU-28 benefit from an ENWORKS-type programme and subsequent investments in resource efficiency measures. The size of the public investment and existing level of resource efficiency is not taken into account.


b) Estimated jobs created and secured

This section describes the findings from the approach used to calculate the number of jobs that could be created/secured across the EU-28 and in individual member states. These estimates take into account the coverage of the €4 billion investment in terms of the number of SMEs assisted. Furthermore, they assume that only a proportion of the SMEs assisted will benefit from the resulting resource efficiency measures.

The results given in Table 4-8 indicate that despite conservative assumptions on the number of jobs that could be created or secured, a €4 billion public investment in the implementation of an ENWORKS-type programme across the EU-28 could have a significant impact on employment. Across the EU-28, the calculations suggest that around 128,180 new jobs could be created. Moreover, as indicated by the results presented in Table 4-8, an estimated 360,630 jobs could be safeguarded as a result of the investment.

Table 4-8: Estimation of jobs created/secured using ENWORKS derived ratios

Country Number of SMEs assisted

SMEs making cost savings

Jobs created Jobs secured

Austria 7,049 3,877 787 2,237

Belgium 18,389 10,482 2,278 6,398

Bulgaria 21,969 11,644 2,281 6,264

Croatia 10,363 3,731 785 2,198

Cyprus 1,466 704 152 428

Czech Republic 83,502 40,081 8,557 24,436

Denmark 5,716 4,630 916 2,592

Estonia 3,971 1,191 256 724

Finland 8,873 4,082 873 2,474

France 116,771 66,560 13,903 38,895

Germany 67,099 34,892 7,473 20,827

Greece 12,170 5,842 1,195 3,166

Hungary 38,771 32,568 6,988 19,648

Ireland 4,960 3,174 695 1,971

Italy 120,552 102,469 21,928 61,315

Latvia 4,979 2,141 440 1,245

Lithuania 3,587 1,722 369 1,041

Luxembourg 474 275 59 168

Malta 1,675 988 213 601

Netherlands 26,285 14,457 3,168 8,949

Poland 131,831 79,099 17,168 48,779

Portugal 27,640 14,925 3,192 8,892

Romania 44,473 34,245 7,189 20,331

Slovakia 50,621 18,224 4,009 11,329

Slovenia 6,022 2,650 537 1,512

Spain 78,713 59,822 12,301 34,404

Sweden 16,295 10,592 2,281 6,454

UK 61,001 37,211 8,188 23,358

EU-28 975,219 602,274 128,181 360,634


Across the individual Member States, the largest number of jobs could be both created and secured in Italy. The results indicate that the jobs created per Member State could range from a low of 59 in Luxembourg to a high of 21,928 in Italy.

However, as noted earlier these figures do not take into account differences in the labour market situations within these countries. The results are therefore purely indicative of the employment effects that could occur if labour market conditions in other Member States were similar to those of the UK. Clearly this is an over simplification for many Member States.


For validation, the turnover on employment ratios were calculated, and then applied to cost savings as calculated under the initial resource cost savings approach (see Section 4.1.2b). The results are shown below.

Table 4-9: Jobs created using the validation measure

Number of SMEs

assisted SMEs making cost

savings Total Resource Cost

Savings € Country Total

Austria 7,049 3,877 € 50,053,821 919

Belgium 18,389 10,482 € 173,064,373 1,968

Bulgaria 21,969 11,644 € 65,284,631 5,817

Croatia 10,363 3,731 € 40,472,582 3,106

Cyprus 1,466 704 € 6,276,562 170

Czech Republic 83,502 40,081 € 422,903,555 19,592

Denmark 5,716 4,630 € 49,325,218 782

Estonia 3,971 1,191 € 7,861,582 337

Finland 8,873 4,082 € 30,361,196 565

France 116,771 66,560 € 1,282,575,083 23,939

Germany 67,099 34,892 € 630,844,614 15,504

Hungary 38,771 32,568 € 335,934,910 17,601

Ireland 4,960 3,174 € 22,953,198 418

Italy 120,552 102,469 € 1,946,120,873 40,655

Latvia 4,979 2,141 € 14,878,298 1,401

Lithuania 3,587 1,722 € 18,740,704 1,833

Luxembourg 474 275 € 7,266,734 189

Netherlands 26,285 14,457 € 399,284,494 6,137

Poland 131,831 79,099 € 674,176,197 42,649

Portugal 27,640 14,925 € 151,179,410 5,152

Romania 44,473 34,245 € 193,418,360 17,361

Slovakia 50,621 18,224 € 203,195,897 16,179

Slovenia 6,022 2,650 € 27,370,241 1,058

Spain 78,713 59,822 € 762,523,390 19,511

Sweden 16,295 10,592 € 143,122,269 2,920

UK 61,001 37,211 € 906,481,569 22,559

EU Total 975,219 602,274 € 8,698,703,239 268,321

Source: our elaboration based on DG Enterprise database

This approach shows that in total across the EU-28 approximately 268,300 jobs will be created due to resource efficiency cost savings made by SMEs in the four sectors. Among the individual Member States, the largest number of jobs could be created in Poland. The calculations indicate that the number of jobs created in Poland could be around 42,700. Likewise countries such as Italy could also expect significant job increases (40,655). Interestingly, the data show that countries with the highest total resource cost savings do not necessarily create the most jobs. For instance, France is


expected to make total resource cost savings of around €1.3 billion, which could create approximately 23,940 jobs. In contrast, Poland is only expected to realise total savings of around €700 million, which would create nearly twice as many jobs compared to France.

4.2 Other resource efficiency programmes with the EU

4.2.1 Distribution of resource efficiency programmes

Almost 230 programmes supporting the identification and implementation of resource efficiency measures for businesses were identified in the previous RPA (2014) study. Due to the very short timescale for this exercise it is not possible to highlight all of these programmes. Nevertheless this section will attempt to provide an overview of the location and results of such programmes as well as some prominent examples of best practice.

Table 4-10 presents an overview table taken from RPA (2014) on the number of resource efficiency support programmes within the EU. The table shows that in the majority of Member States (with the exception of Austria and Germany), there are more programmes concentrating on the provision of information and generic support than those providing direct, hands-on support.

Table 4-10: Identified programmes providing resource efficiency support

Member State No. of general programmes

providing information, grants etc.

No. of direct, hands-on support programmes

Austria 4 9

Belgium 10 9

Bulgaria 2 -

Croatia 1 -

Cyprus 1 -

Czech Republic 5 2

Germany 13 24

Denmark 9 4

Estonia 3 -

Finland 3 1

France 9 6

Greece - -

Hungary 2 -

Ireland 9 8

Italy 2 3

Latvia 1 -

Lithuania - 1

Luxembourg 1 -

Malta 3 -

Netherlands 8 7

Poland - 4

Portugal 1 1

Romania - -

Spain 15 10

Sweden 3 3

Slovakia 4 -

Slovenia 1 -

United Kingdom 10 10

Total 126 102


4.2.2 Outputs from other resource efficiency programmes

In terms of the outputs of such programmes, the RPA (2014) report provides an overview of some of the most prominent examples. Four programmes in particular are reviewed in the report, including the PIUS-CHECK Programme (Germany), the National Industrial Symbiosis Programme (UK), the ENWORKS programme (UK) and ÖkoBusinessPlan Wien (Austria). The outputs of the first three programmes have been highlighted within this study (see Section 1.2). The main outputs of the ÖkoBusinessPlan Wien programme are highlighted below in Table 4-11.

Table 4-11: Savings identified from the ÖkoBusinessPlan Wien Programme, 2010

Category Units Amount saved

Raw materials Tonnes/year 192.90

Materials Tonnes/year 1,468.43

Water ‘000 m3/year 10.72

Dangerous waste (incl. oil) Tonnes/year 288.58

Non-dangerous waste Tonnes/year 1,852.24

Waste water ‘000 m3/year 0.03

Electricity GWh/year 6.20

Electricity from renewable sources

GWh/year 2.88

Gas GWh/year 2.85

Oil GWh/year 0.15

Biomass GWh/year 0.08

Heating GWh/year 0.63

Other energy GWh/year 0.04

CO2 emissions – energy Tonnes/year 7,042.99

CO2 emissions - transport Tonnes/year 283.59

Source: Evaluation des ÖkoBusinessPlan Wien, Programmjahr 2010, May 2011, Wuppertal (Germany)

These outputs relate to measures implemented across the 144 businesses supported by the programme in 2010. Furthermore, these figures should be considered underestimates as outcomes from 66% of the measures implemented have not been quantified by the evaluation report. On the other hand, the evaluation report also states that the figures do not make a clear a distinction between those savings resulting from measures specifically implemented with programme support and those corresponding to measures that companies would have implemented anyway. As a result the savings could be lower than displayed in Table 4-11.

In addition to the programmes reviewed in detail in RPA (2014), the report also provided a broad overview of the outputs from a number of other resource efficiency support programme. Table 4-12 below provides information on the overall cost and savings associated with programmes across the EU-28 providing direct hands on support for businesses.


Table 4-12: Quantitative information on outcomes of programmes providing hands-on, direct support to SMEs

Programme

Pe

rio

d

Co

vera

ge

Co

st/€

Ene

rgy

save

d

Mat

eri

als

save

d

/to

nn

es

Co

st

savi

ngs

/€

Incr

eas

ed

turn

ove

r /€

CO

2 e

mis

sio

n

savi

ngs

/

ton

ne

s

Was

te

red

uct

ion

/

ton

ne

s

Wat

er

red

uct

ion

/m

3

Job

s cr

eat

ed

Job

s

safe

guar

de

d

Eco-Efficiency Scan, Belgium

2006-10 1,000 SMEs €2.6m 8% per company

4% per company

PIUS-Check, Germany

2000-10 216 (implemented)

€36m (to firms)

50.5 GWh per year, 300 MWh per SME

20,000 (total at 2008) 113 per SME

1.2m per year, 6,000 per SME

Effnet, Germany 2006-13 80 €5.9m per year

20,810

National Industrial Symbiosis Programme (UK)

2005-13

By 2008, 8,000 (all) and 7,600 SMEs By 2010, 13,400 (all) and 12,730 SMEs

€21.8m (2005-8) €33.2m (2005-10)

950,137 (2005/6) 9.7m (2005/10)

€44m (2005/6) €188.5m (2005-10)

19.9m (2005/6) 211.3m (2005-10)

328,964 (2005/6) 6m (2005-10)

636,852 and 221,625 hazardous waste, 2005/6 7m and 363,626 hazardous waste, 2005-10

264,475 (tonnes, 2005/6) 9.6m (tonnes, 2005-10)

3,683 (2005-10)

5,087 (2005-10)

National Industrial Symbiosis Programme (Yorkshire, UK)

2005-9 609,629 €35.8m 474,478

£21.4m invested in waste diversion 813,376 (diverted from landfill)

310 723

Bright Green Business (UK)

2001-13 700 placements in 500 firms

€12m potential

33,000 80,000 80

Green Business Network, UK

30

2,000 over 15 years Project 1,200 from 2011-14

€420,000 per year

€100,000 (2011-14)

5,000 (2011-14)

21

Envirowise, UK 2006-7 €15.1m 62,700 €146m 85,500 466,000 11.5m

30

Estimates for savings, jobs etc. cover 2011 -14



Programme

Pe

rio

d

Co

vera

ge

Co

st/€

Ene

rgy

save

d

Mat

eri

als

save

d

/to

nn

es

Co

st

savi

ngs

/€

Incr

eas

ed

turn

ove

r /€

CO

2 e

mis

sio

n

savi

ngs

/

ton

ne

s

Was

te

red

uct

ion

/

ton

ne

s

Wat

er

red

uct

ion

/m

3

Job

s cr

eat

ed

Job

s

safe

guar

de

d

(2006-7) (2006-7) (2006-7) (2006-7) (2006-7) 986 hazardous waste (2006-7)

(2006-7)

Envirowise Resource Efficiency clubs, UK

2006-7 €1.98m (2006-7)

6,340 (2006-7)

€7.9m 8,360 (2006-7)

37,800 (2006-7) 409 hazardous waste (2006-7)

435,000 (2006-7)

WRAP, UK 2008-11

€2.28 billion (business, consumers and public sector)

451m per year

6.6m 12.6m per year 5.7m per year

B2B Green Mentors, Ireland

01/05 – 06/06

60 €109,855 €24,000 p.a. (1 case study

Green Business Initiative, Ireland

2008-12

700 members 300 resource efficiency assessments

€12.8m €2.7m

€1.35m (2010) €4m (2011) 18m (2008-12)

1.3m 1.3m

SME Programme, Ireland

2007-11 1,470 from 2007-11 (97% SMEs in 2009)

€1.2m per year

Cumulative value of energy, CO2 and other saved: €6m in 2009, €15m in 2010

Average 10.3% per year

19,500 (2009) 51,800 (2010)



Programme

Pe

rio

d

Co

vera

ge

Co

st/€

Ene

rgy

save

d

Mat

eri

als

save

d

/to

nn

es

Co

st

savi

ngs

/€

Incr

eas

ed

turn

ove

r /€

CO

2 e

mis

sio

n

savi

ngs

/

ton

ne

s

Was

te

red

uct

ion

/

ton

ne

s

Wat

er

red

uct

ion

/m

3

Job

s cr

eat

ed

Job

s

safe

guar

de

d

SMILE, Ireland 2010-13

1,000 users, 2,318 potential exchanges identified, 550 directly supported

€0.15m per year

€81,200 (actual and potential in 2011)

25,721 potentially diverted (2010-13)

EnVol, France 160

PBE+, France 2010 1,700 €493,117 per year

Plan PME, France 2011 – 07/2013

>1,500 €15m per year

GREEN, covering Italy, Romania, Greece, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Montenegro, Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia, Turkey

04/2010 – 04/2012

Varied for different programme services

8.54% reduction in amount of water/raw materials/electricity

9.66% reduction in cost of water/materials/elect. 9.6% reduction in fines

9.35% (8.25% increase in re-use, 22.18% increase in amount sold)


4.3 Task 2: Savings aggregated for the four individual sectors at the EU-28 and individual Member State levels

4.3.1 Overview

The results presented in this section align with those given in Section 4.1, the main difference being that the data are now presented at the aggregate sector levels. This allows for a relative comparison of the benefits of the proposed investment across the four selected sectors: Food and Beverages; Energy, Power and Utilities; Environmental Technologies; and Construction.

4.3.2 Resource cost savings aggregated by Sector

a) Maximum potential savings

The maximum potential cost savings are presented in Table 4-13. The table indicates that across the sectors the largest maximum cost savings could be realised in the Construction sector. In fact, the estimations show that the Construction sector accounts for nearly 85% of the maximum potential savings that across all four sectors. The second largest sector in terms of maximum potential savings is Food and Beverages, which makes up for around €5.8 billion of the total savings.

Table 4-13: Maximum potential cost savings

Country Food and Beverages



Construction

Austria € 62,903,719 € 26,212,933 € 36,239,825 € 385,476,410

Belgium € 166,597,388 € 6,738,244 € 39,980,346 € 1,508,342,845

Bulgaria € 36,910,198 € 6,725,880 € 6,389,051 € 86,060,201

Croatia € 42,115,392 € 4,392,502 € 12,858,018 € 183,198,026

Cyprus € 7,605,086 € 148,397 € 2,827,921 € 38,678,368

Czech Republic € 114,064,185 € 51,003,132 € 115,691,971 € 1,714,744,302

Denmark € 22,131,476 € 31,096,616 € 11,340,116 € 331,346,145

Estonia € 3,733,341 € 1,107,680 € 1,895,148 € 52,021,123

Finland € 16,429,635 € 8,150,501 € 9,937,283 € 314,593,155

France € 1,501,969,356 € 304,624,005 € 330,305,306 € 9,022,718,544

Germany € 760,404,273 € 43,551,089 € 102,217,665 € 4,576,207,085

Greece € 221,709,006 .. .. € 356,467,120

Hungary € 88,924,960 € 6,865,388 € 29,052,131 € 565,566,820

Ireland € 5,514,808 € 1,366,856 € 3,813,098 € 176,125,150

Italy € 1,387,224,726 € 103,260,071 € 276,751,384 € 8,627,349,408

Latvia € 7,807,419 € 2,715,632 € 3,631,477 € 50,528,603

Lithuania € 18,607,106 € 3,983,970 € 6,746,204 € 201,634,111

Luxembourg € 5,186,892 € 1,642,513 € 2,731,216 € 83,157,277

Malta € 26,164,445 € 1,181,497 € 9,452,532 € 165,628,483

Netherlands € 165,255,470 € 16,704,056 € 60,520,448 € 3,416,071,823

Poland € 149,210,784 € 21,655,622 € 101,172,305 € 1,783,516,295

Portugal € 130,440,394 € 6,783,904 € 18,742,877 € 726,090,010

Romania € 66,119,239 € 5,576,499 € 31,212,562 € 217,364,315

Slovakia € 42,332,921 € 3,008,778 € 16,770,077 € 1,063,095,930

Slovenia € 17,581,405 € 10,730,296 € 6,140,645 € 156,666,595

Spain € 429,822,796 € 150,695,195 € 74,435,671 € 3,045,833,929

Sweden € 61,941,623 € 25,466,109 € 30,563,832 € 1,281,409,418

UK € 246,889,735 € 35,639,842 € 309,790,039 € 6,110,756,787

EU-28 € 5,805,597,779 € 881,027,206 € 1,651,209,147 € 46,240,648,280


b) Estimated savings

The estimated savings take into account the coverage of the €4 billion public investment and existing baseline levels of resource efficiency. The results show that the Construction sector could account for the largest proportion of total savings across the four sectors at approximately €7.3 billion (see Table 4-14). In comparison, the other three sectors make up for a small proportion of the total savings across the EU-28. For instance, savings in the Energy, Power and Utilities sector only account for 1.62% of the total. Likewise, savings in the Environmental Technologies sector are only marginally higher as a proportion of the total at 3.29%. It is therefore clear from the analysis that the largest savings could be realised in the Construction sector.

Table 4-14: Estimated savings taking into account €4 billion public investment and baseline resource efficiency




Construction

Austria € 6,163,604 € 2,568,467 € 3,550,949 € 37,770,801

Belgium € 16,746,682 € 677,341 € 4,018,899 € 151,621,451

Bulgaria € 17,707,042 € 3,226,627 € 3,065,039 € 41,285,923

Croatia € 7,027,090 € 732,903 € 2,145,402 € 30,567,186

Cyprus € 969,022 € 18,908 € 360,327 € 4,928,305

Czech Republic € 24,173,421 € 10,809,004 € 24,518,395 € 363,402,734

Denmark € 2,757,263 € 3,874,190 € 1,412,815 € 41,280,950

Estonia € 499,512 € 148,205 € 253,566 € 6,960,299

Finland € 1,428,841 € 708,827 € 864,218 € 27,359,310

France € 172,621,375 € 35,010,445 € 37,961,997 € 1,036,981,266

Germany € 87,497,935 € 5,011,322 € 11,761,947 € 526,573,410

Greece € 33,572,011 .. .. € 53,977,591

Hungary € 43,268,534 € 3,340,516 € 14,135,999 € 275,189,861

Ireland € 677,564 € 167,936 € 468,487 € 21,639,211

Italy € 259,722,427 € 19,332,813 € 51,814,634 € 1,615,251,000

Latvia € 1,795,849 € 624,645 € 835,306 € 11,622,499

Lithuania € 1,509,755 € 323,254 € 547,378 € 16,360,317

Luxembourg € 406,521 € 128,731 € 214,058 € 6,517,423

Malta € 5,878,962 € 265,474 € 2,123,916 € 37,215,524

Netherlands € 18,035,537 € 1,823,036 € 6,605,039 € 372,820,882

Poland € 48,937,809 € 7,102,561 € 33,182,260 € 584,953,567

Portugal € 22,356,716 € 1,162,721 € 3,212,419 € 124,447,554

Romania € 39,930,591 € 3,367,747 € 18,849,824 € 131,270,198

Slovakia € 7,644,701 € 543,341 € 3,028,428 € 191,979,427

Slovenia € 2,517,842 € 1,536,691 € 879,405 € 22,436,303

Spain € 88,562,212 € 31,049,772 € 15,336,989 € 627,574,416

Sweden € 6,335,105 € 2,604,557 € 3,125,929 € 131,056,678

UK € 33,387,803 € 4,819,706 € 41,894,041 € 826,380,018

EU-28 € 952,131,726 € 140,979,739 € 286,167,667 € 7,319,424,107


The validation approach yields similar findings to those in the previous section albeit at larger magnitudes (see Table 4-15). Again, the results show that the investment could lead to the highest resource cost savings being realised in the Construction sector at around €26.7 billion. This represents around 82% of the total savings across the four sectors, which is in line with the previous results. Likewise, the Food and Beverages account for the next largest proportion of total savings at around 5%.


Table 4-15: Estimation of resource cost savings using validation approach




Construction

Austria € 17,535,304 € 41,219,359 € 66,537,575 € 222,752,534

Belgium € 46,445,749 € 10,596,985 € 73,409,477 € 871,703,703

Bulgaria € 10,289,238 € 10,575,820 € 11,730,204 € 49,732,380

Croatia € 11,741,495 € 6,908,254 € 23,609,891 € 105,877,884

Cyprus € 2,120,114 € 233,369 € 5,192,245 € 22,352,001

Czech Republic € 31,796,901 € 80,201,032 € 212,415,272 € 990,940,058

Denmark € 6,168,982 € 48,895,010 € 20,819,597 € 191,460,721

Estonia € 1,040,680 € 1,741,628 € 3,479,326 € 30,059,750

Finland € 4,580,035 € 12,817,644 € 18,245,260 € 181,799,731

France € 418,691,994 € 479,008,468 € 606,444,420 € 5,213,943,001

Germany € 211,976,101 € 68,483,409 € 187,674,665 € 2,644,543,688

Greece € 61,801,578 .. .. € 205,984,665

Hungary € 24,787,521 € 10,795,970 € 53,338,114 € 326,820,767

Ireland € 1,537,415 € 2,149,577 € 7,001,815 € 101,793,232

Italy € 386,716,281 € 162,385,000 € 508,143,671 € 4,985,763,147

Latvia € 2,176,435 € 4,270,313 € 6,667,946 € 29,200,156

Lithuania € 5,186,607 € 6,264,309 € 12,385,736 € 116,509,458

Luxembourg € 1,445,994 € 2,582,923 € 5,014,803 € 48,056,708

Malta € 7,294,021 € 1,857,994 € 17,355,711 € 95,718,025

Netherlands € 46,069,549 € 26,267,880 € 111,122,522 € 1,974,162,450

Poland € 41,596,949 € 34,057,271 € 185,771,473 € 1,030,679,871

Portugal € 36,361,651 € 10,668,126 € 34,412,900 € 419,584,617

Romania € 18,429,124 € 8,767,403 € 57,297,961 € 125,580,113

Slovakia € 11,801,025 € 4,731,431 € 30,789,132 € 614,309,228

Slovenia € 4,900,811 € 16,871,446 € 11,273,424 € 90,525,047

Spain € 119,821,207 € 236,984,629 € 136,671,616 € 1,760,203,360

Sweden € 17,268,067 € 40,047,250 € 56,118,410 € 740,531,787

UK € 68,825,744 € 56,045,177 € 568,789,412 € 3,531,298,022

EU-28 € 1,618,406,573 € 1,385,427,677 € 3,031,712,579 € 26,721,886,105

4.3.3 Reduction in resource use aggregated by Sector

a) Maximum potential reduction in resource use

Table 4-16 presents the maximum potential reductions in resource use across the four sectors. From the figures, it can be seen that with the exception of water use, the largest reductions in resource use could occur in the Construction sector. With regards to water usage, the Food and Beverages sector could make the largest reductions with savings of 238 million m3 annually. The smallest reductions could occur in the Energy, Power and Utilities and Environmental Technologies sectors.

Table 4-16: Estimation of maximum potential reductions in resource use across the EU-28

Type of resource Food and Beverages



Construction

Energy (kWh/y) 120,540,883,485 31,235,022,373 890,368,686 754,681,842,822

Energy (CO2/y) 48,499,693 23,852,664 353,461 266,876,489

Material resources (t/y) 7,317,789,739 6,113,625 36,617,989 3,382,487,164

Water use (m3/year) 238,095,850 4,652,988 583,249 104,807,610

Waste diverted from landfill (t/y)

15,485,592 1,300,667 170,439,594 1,069,469,048


b) Estimated reduction in resource use

The results set out in Table 4-17 reaffirm those in Table 4-16. They suggest that despite taking into account the overall coverage of the €4 billion public investment and existing baseline levels of resource efficiency, the largest reductions could occur in the Construction sector. The only exception to this trend is in water use where the largest reductions could be realised by the Food and Beverages sector. Once again, the smallest reductions could be expected in the Energy, Power and Utilities and Environmental Technologies sectors.

Table 4-17: Estimation reductions in resource use across the EU-28 taking into account €4 billion public investment and baseline resource efficiency

Type of resource Food and Beverages



Construction

Energy (kWh/y) 21,669,653,339 5,483,023,733 175,703,906 129,692,062,683

Energy (CO2/y) 8,719,364 4,186,310 69,935 45,882,816

Material resources (t/y) 1,200,133,156 978,900 6,346,205 535,385,461

Water use (m3/y) 35,356,692 650,808 89,831 15,202,037

Waste diverted from landfill (t/y)

2,242,929 191,087 25,233,289 153,644,148

The results above are presented for each sector at the aggregate EU-28 level. Annex 1 provides the calculations for each Sector per Member State.

4.3.4 Jobs created and secured aggregated by Sector

a) Maximum potential jobs created and secured

The maximum potential jobs that could be created and secured if all SMEs made cost savings across the EU-28 are presented in Tables 4-18 and 4-19 below. The figures show that the largest number of jobs could be created in the Construction sector, which alone could account for around 91% of the maximum potential jobs created. Likewise, Table 4-19 shows that the Construction sector would account for a disproportionate amount of the maximum potential jobs secured among the sectors.

Table 4-18: Maximum potential jobs created by sector

Food and beverage

Energy Power and Utilities


Construction Country Total

Austria 615 0 424 6,998 8,037

Belgium 1,252 0 360 21,048 22,660

Bulgaria 859 0 178 3,718 4,754

Croatia 498 0 182 4,022 4,702

Cyprus 110 0 49 1,034 1,193

Czech Republic 1,340 0 1,627 37,410 40,377

Denmark 250 0 153 6,947 7,351

Estonia 70 0 42 1,799 1,911

Finland 269 0 195 9,576 10,040

France 9,740 0 2,564 108,663 120,967

Germany 5,264 0 847 58,832 64,943

Greece 1,980 .. .. 5,912 7,892

Hungary 1,088 0 425 12,848 14,362

Ireland 93 0 77 5,492 5,661

Italy 9,158 0 2,187 105,778 117,124

Latvia 141 0 79 1,695 1,915


Table 4-18: Maximum potential jobs created by sector

Food and beverage




Lithuania 211 0 92 4,244 4,546

Luxembourg 24 0 15 716 756

Malta 72 0 31 847 950

Netherlands 729 0 320 27,981 29,029

Poland 2,180 0 1,770 48,394 52,344

Portugal 1,618 0 278 16,730 18,627

Romania 1,552 0 877 9,475 11,905

Slovakia 461 0 219 21,518 22,198

Slovenia 209 0 87 3,451 3,747

Spain 4,155 0 861 54,683 59,699

Sweden 557 0 329 21,418 22,304

UK 1,249 0 1,876 57,419 60,544

EU Total 45,742 0 16,145 658,648 720,535


Table 4-19: Maximum potential jobs secured by sector

Food and beverage




Austria 1,299 0 1,733 19,794 22,826

Belgium 2,644 0 1,470 59,538 63,652

Bulgaria 1,813 0 727 10,517 13,057

Croatia 1,052 0 744 11,378 13,173

Cyprus 231 0 199 2,926 3,356

Czech Republic 2,830 0 6,650 105,822 115,301

Denmark 528 0 626 19,652 20,806

Estonia 147 0 173 5,089 5,408

Finland 569 0 797 27,087 28,452

France 20,570 0 10,481 307,370 338,422

Germany 11,117 0 3,462 166,416 180,995

Greece 4,182 .. .. 16,724 20,906

Hungary 2,297 0 1,739 36,344 40,380

Ireland 196 0 313 15,534 16,043

Italy 19,342 0 8,940 299,211 327,493

Latvia 298 0 321 4,795 5,414

Lithuania 445 0 374 12,004 12,824

Luxembourg 51 0 62 2,026 2,139

Malta 152 0 127 2,395 2,674

Netherlands 1,539 0 1,306 79,149 81,994

Poland 4,604 0 7,233 136,890 148,728

Portugal 3,418 0 1,138 47,323 51,879

Romania 3,278 0 3,585 26,802 33,666

Slovakia 974 0 894 60,867 62,736

Slovenia 440 0 356 9,762 10,559

Spain 8,775 0 3,521 154,679 166,975

Sweden 1,177 0 1,346 60,584 63,107

UK 2,638 0 7,669 162,419 172,726

EU Total 96,606 0 65,988 1,863,096 2,025,690



b) Estimated jobs created and secured

When the overall size of the investment is taken into account along with assumptions on the baseline level of resource efficiency in Member States, the overall result remains unchanged (see Tables 4-20 and 4-21). The Construction sector still accounts for a significantly large proportion of the overall jobs that could be created and secured. The next largest sector is Food and Beverages accounting for 6.7% and 5.0% of the jobs created and secured respectively. Notably, the calculations suggest that in each instance the Energy, Power and Utilities sector does not create or secure any jobs. This is due to the fact that the sample data provided by ENWORKS shows that no jobs were created in this sector during the period 2004-9. It could therefore be inferred that this sector is highly capital intensive by nature and that accrued resource efficiency savings may not be reinvested into additional labour31.

Table 4-20: Estimated jobs created by Sector

Food and beverage




Austria 60 0 42 686 787

Belgium 126 0 36 2,116 2,278

Bulgaria 412 0 85 1,784 2,281

Croatia 83 0 30 671 785

Cyprus 14 0 6 132 152

Czech Republic 284 0 345 7,928 8,557

Denmark 31 0 19 866 916

Estonia 9 0 6 241 256

Finland 23 0 17 833 873

France 1,119 0 295 12,489 13,903

Germany 606 0 97 6,770 7,473

Greece 300 .. .. 895 1,195

Hungary 529 0 207 6,252 6,988

Ireland 11 0 9 675 695

Italy 1,715 0 410 19,804 21,928

Latvia 32 0 18 390 440

Lithuania 17 0 7 344 369

Luxembourg 2 0 1 56 59

Malta 16 0 7 190 213

Netherlands 80 0 35 3,054 3,168

Poland 715 0 580 15,872 17,168

Portugal 277 0 48 2,867 3,192

Romania 937 0 530 5,722 7,189

Slovakia 83 0 40 3,886 4,009

Slovenia 30 0 12 494 537

Spain 856 0 177 11,267 12,301

Sweden 57 0 34 2,191 2,281

UK 169 0 254 7,765 8,188

EU Total 8,595 0 3,348 116,238 128,181


31

As noted in Section 2.4 this could also be due to the fact that the sample size for this Sector was small with data for only 16 SMEs recorded.


Table 4-21: Estimated jobs secured by Sector

Food and beverage




Austria 127 0 170 1,939 2,237

Belgium 266 0 148 5,985 6,398

Bulgaria 870 0 349 5,045 6,264

Croatia 175 0 124 1,898 2,198

Cyprus 29 0 25 373 428

Czech Republic 600 0 1,409 22,427 24,436

Denmark 66 0 78 2,448 2,592

Estonia 20 0 23 681 724

Finland 49 0 69 2,356 2,474

France 2,364 0 1,205 35,326 38,895

Germany 1,279 0 398 19,149 20,827

Greece 633 .. .. 2,532 3,166

Hungary 1,118 0 846 17,684 19,648

Ireland 24 0 38 1,909 1,971

Italy 3,621 0 1,674 56,020 61,315

Latvia 69 0 74 1,103 1,245

Lithuania 36 0 30 974 1,041


Malta 34 0 29 538 601

Netherlands 168 0 143 8,638 8,949

Poland 1,510 0 2,372 44,897 48,779

Portugal 586 0 195 8,111 8,892

Romania 1,980 0 2,165 16,187 20,331

Slovakia 176 0 162 10,992 11,329

Slovenia 63 0 51 1,398 1,512

Spain 1,808 0 725 31,871 34,404

Sweden 120 0 138 6,196 6,454

UK 357 0 1,037 21,964 23,358

EU Total 18,153 0 13,682 328,799 360,634



In contrast to the figures presented in Table 4-22, the results from the validation approach show a more balanced picture across the sectors. Furthermore, in contrast to the previous results, the Environmental Technologies sector could account for the largest proportion of jobs created at around 42% of the total. The Construction and Food Beverage sectors could make up for 76,330 and 71,510 newly created jobs respectively.

It is also worth noting that 7,700 jobs could be created in the Energy, Power and Utilities sector. Nevertheless, this sector still accounts for the smallest proportion of newly created employment, as indicated in Table 4-22. This could further point to the fact that this sector is highly capital intensive thus accrued savings would not necessarily be reinvested into new labour.


Table 4-22: Jobs created under “Estimated cost savings approach: €4 billion Public Investment”

Food and beverage




Austria 282 16 279 343 919

Belgium 532 12 629 796 1,968

Bulgaria 1,931 86 2,584 1,215 5,817

Croatia 904 283 1,230 689 3,106

Cyprus 47 10 65 48 170

Czech Republic 5,435 374 7,700 6,083 19,592

Denmark 248 13 188 333 782

Estonia 97 18 121 101 337

Finland 154 21 179 211 565

France 6,732 913 8,433 7,861 23,939

Germany 5,220 287 3,846 6,152 15,504

Hungary 5,350 258 6,406 5,587 17,601

Ireland 75 16 181 146 418

Italy 9,466 596 17,894 12,699 40,655

Latvia 352 106 662 281 1,401

Lithuania 465 114 669 586 1,833


Netherlands 1,403 97 2,501 2,136 6,137

Poland 10,130 2,086 21,007 9,425 42,649

Portugal 1,582 94 1,882 1,594 5,152

Romania 7,425 661 5,337 3,937 17,361

Slovakia 3,174 263 8,046 4,697 16,179

Slovenia 308 29 430 291 1,058

Spain 3,857 478 10,655 4,521 19,511

Sweden 699 106 1,115 999 2,920

UK 5,587 772 10,647 5,553 22,559

EU Total 71,510 7,714 112,768 76,330 268,321



5 Task 3: Up-scaling the ENWORKS Monitoring Approach

5.1 Introduction

Task 3 is aimed at assessing the possibility of up-scaling the ENWORKS approach to monitoring resource efficiency savings resulting from targeted support to SMEs to other Member States. The main focus is on the feasibility of expanding the use of ENWORKS online software in terms of costs and ease of use at both the company and programme levels32.

At the core of the ENWORKS monitoring approach is its Online Resource Efficiency Toolkit (“the Toolkit”), a bespoke piece of web-based software, developed to capture and report the economic and environmental outcomes of resource efficiency activity.

In the following sections, the main features of the toolkit are described, focusing on its structures, the costs of implementation and maintenance, and some opportunities and concerns that should be considered in extending the use of this type of software to programmes in other Member States.

5.2 The Online Resource Efficiency Toolkit structure

The design of the Toolkit structure resembles that of a “family tree”, as shown in Figure 5-1, with security access built into each of the four levels. This “cascade approach” of the four hierarchical levels could be tailored to represent different forms of support and different geographical scales. The structure allows for adaptation to fit multiple uses and users, and could easily be adapted to different organisations and/or projects.

For example, users can be created with viewing/editing credentials at any of the four levels, creating privacy blocks for confidential information and allowing consolidated reporting. In addition to the four levels, the software allows bespoke groups to be created at any level to aid reporting and provide greater flexibility; for example, regions could be grouped to generate reports for an entire country.

32

This section is largely based on consultation with ENWORKS projects managers, who provided further documentation as a follow up.


Figure 5-1: Cascade Approach showing the “family tree” architecture of the Toolkit

5.3 Functionality

Resource Efficiency Opportunities function

The primary functionality of the Toolkit is the logging, prioritising, quantifying and reporting of resource efficiency opportunities (hereafter, Opportunity function). This function is applicable to environmental projects in any geographical location, and any sector of business. It is based on standard principles that are aligned to core environmental audit processes and relies on drop down menus to assist the user and standardise the data entry process. As a result, ENWORKS notes that many aspects of the Opportunity function would not require any updates to be adopted by other Member States. For example, “Opportunity Status”, “Saving Type”, “Resource Use”, “Supplier Location” and “Method”. These elements already have built-in dropdown lists that cover a wide range of possible efficiency improvement scenarios that would currently be applicable (but these can be expanded if required).

The “List of Resources” contains 26 different energy types, water sources and commonly used materials. Associated with the Resource Types are default prices and CO2e conversion factors, which would need to be updated. The default prices embedded into the Toolkit are based on UK averages and therefore new figures for each Member State would need to be developed and uploaded. This is not a mandatory feature, as manual price entries are added (with the default prices just providing a guide).

The CO2e conversion factors that are used in Toolkit to calculate CO2e savings from different Resource Types is one area where significant further development would be required. The factors currently used are from the UK government Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) “Carbon Conversion Factors for Businesses”. These are applied across the whole Toolkit and should be considered to be specific to the UK unless demonstrated to also apply to business in other Member States. It is expected that this aspect of any software would need to include a list of factors


for each Member State, with a link created between the Region/Programme level and the conversion factors to be used. A secondary issue is the availability of these data for each Member State.

Annual Resource Data

The Toolkit also enables the recording of Annual Resource Use Data for up to 30 resource types. This function captures a business’s use of resources; both number of units (tonnes, m3 etc.) and/or cost, allowing businesses to establish an annual baseline position against which improvements can be measured. Clearly this function would need to operate in other currencies, as appropriate to the Member State where the tool is to be implemented.

Reports

The reporting functionality of the Toolkit is operated using drop-down lists and embedded calendars to summarise the data entered in a variety of ways. The structure allows different users to generate different reports depending on their requirements and priorities.

5.4 User interface, Data entry, and branding

Users can be created for individuals in the structure equal to or below the existing user in the hierarchy. New users are provided with a unique username and required to enter their own password for security in order to login to the Toolkit. At present, forgotten passwords are resolved manually within project structures. Ideally, the system would also include an automated password recovery function and this could also be developed.

Data entry is a straightforward task. The Toolkit operates as a system to record the findings of an audit and calculations are embedded into the functionality.

Entry requirements and estimated times are as follows:

a) Creating a business – 2 minutes b) Creating a user – 2 minutes c) Adding an opportunity – 5 minutes

As an illustration, if a project supports a company through a review of its resource use and operations and identifies four improvement opportunities, it will take the advisor 24 minutes to create the business on the Toolkit, create and assign a user to the business and create the opportunity data. This can then be used to report the audit findings to businesses and to track improvements over time. Updating an Opportunity function (either value or status) can be carried out simply and quickly at the click of a button.

It is important to understand that the time requirements are minimal because the Toolkit is not a substitute for a professional environmental audit or support service from a suitably qualified individual. The Toolkit is used by ENWORKS and the businesses it supports as part of an overall business support programme and should not be considered as a standalone package.

The “branding” of the Toolkit webpage is simplified to two colours and a logo. There is flexibility within these specified boundaries to change the colour scheme and have a personalised logo in the top banner. The cost associated with the design and upload of personalised pages would be roughly € 2,480 per Member State, Region or Programme. Each uniquely designed page could also be linked to specified domain names.


Once logged in, a user’s homepage could be additionally personalised to show a live link to relevant statistics, as per the efficiencytoolkit.net landing page. If this was a requirement of Member State, Region or programme, the estimated development and upload costs would be roughly € 6,200 each.

Finally, it should be noted that the Toolkit content is currently in English. Translation is possible but would involve additional associated costs.

5.5 IT support and associated costs

The IT support required for the toolkit is summarized in the following table:

Table 5-1: ENWORKS Toolkit: IT support and costs

IT functions Cost(a)

Description

Software maintenance, licenses and Secure Socket Layers (SSL)

€ 18,600 (annual)

This covers software upgrades, licence renewals and patches (A check is required to see if different licenses are required in different countries). The cost of scaling this up is unlikely to be as high as current costs multiplied by the number of new countries/regions or programmes.

Server hosting € 18,600 to

€ 24,810

Costs are based on stored memory and traffic. The current levels are 10,000 businesses and 40,000 opportunity records. Costs will increase based on the increased memory required and users.

Domain names € 124

At present there are a number of domains including .net and .com which could be applied in any country. Individual domain names could also be purchased if required (many are available for € 25 annually)

Software development Varies

The cost is based on the functionality improvement and complexity required and includes time for testing. Recent projects have had an annual development budget of € 37,200 to cover known developments, e.g. CO2e factor & default price updates but also new functionality to remain aligned to business need, regulations, best practice etc.

Issue resolution 6-10 days This has been at a very low level over the 10 years of Toolkit usage. Issues have been minor and fixes can typically be applied within 72 hours.

Help desk function Varies

Providing telephone support to respond to queries and resolve operational issues. This could be rolled out to individual Member States, regions or programmes with training.

Note: (a) Costs are estimated based on 2014 prices. Values were converted to Euro using the 2014 average nominal exchange rate- Euro 1 = GBP 0.806

All support services can be provided remotely and do not need to be in the country/area of delivery.

The Toolkit has operated under a strict rule that all developments will apply to all businesses, regardless of Programme, Project or Region. However, in exceptional circumstances, functions can be hidden from view for certain users but the functionality will remain in the background.

In order to maintain the accuracy and continuity of the Toolkit, two additional sites have been created: a training site, and a test site. The training site mimics the live Toolkit in all functionality and therefore all developments will need to be applied to the training site. The test site is an


environment in which new developments can be trialled and is restricted to the development and test teams.

5.6 Training

Advisers33

Adviser training has typically taken the format of a 1-day “train the trainer” session that can then be rolled out across a project or to multiple projects. The training format is easy to replicate and can be undertaken at any location with internet access, although translators may be required.

The “Train the Trainer” approach allows knowledge to cascade down to a wide number of individuals, whilst minimising the time requirement to attend specific events. This maximises delivery time and keeps costs low.

In addition, the Toolkit already contains help boxes within several sections that open on a click, providing in-application support. The only additional requirement would be translation.

User and Technical Manual

A user manual has previously been developed for specific projects and could be updated to provide a useful reference point for advisers/project managers. This could be translated for non-English speaking users.

A detailed technical manual, explaining the various functionalities exists in English and could be translated for other Member States.

Further training and guidance could be provided by the development of online videos, animations, and screen shots.

Business Users

Training has historically been done via business advisers as part of the overall package of support. A business user’s functionality is limited to a single company view and they can be restricted from edit functionality to avoid data deletion/errors. In most cases, the reporting function is the most relevant for business users, and therefore a quick induction of 1 hour is usually sufficient and can be done alongside the communication of audit findings. On-going support is still made available via telephone or in person as appropriate for the project.

It may not be necessary in all projects to allow business user access and this element could be ignored if not required.

5.7 SWOT analysis of the ENWORKS Toolkit

Strengths

The Toolkit operates within a very robust but also flexible structure. It has been tested on 67 different programmes to date, and all of these have been able to map their delivery structure to that of the Toolkit. Similarly, the functionality to accommodate users at different operating levels

33

These are the same advisors that support businesses on identifying and implementing resource efficiency measures. They are therefore not specific advisors who train businesses to use the toolkit.


provides several options for project delivery and also provides security over the entered data. At present 890 users are registered on the Toolkit which demonstrates the success of the adopted training approach, particularly as help desk queries are virtually zero.

Further flexibility around the fixed structure is provided by the ‘Groups’ function, which allows for tailored reporting at a variety of scales. At present 229 Groups exist on the Toolkit and can be created at all user levels.

The Toolkit exists online, meaning that it can be accessed from anywhere there is an internet connection, and avoids the need for complicated or expensive software to be downloaded onto individual devices. It operates across all main internet browsers, including Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari and Chrome.

The user interface has been specifically designed to be simple to operate, with a logical process flow, drop down boxes and detailed help sections. This ensures that training requirements are minimal. The simplified data entry process also ensures a consistent approach allowing for detailed analysis.

One of the great strengths of the Toolkit is that it has allowed the meaningful measurement and analysis of important metrics that have previously been difficult to assess. The cost and environmental savings that are reported can have a significant political and policy impact, allowing programmes to move beyond simply knowing ‘how many businesses have been supported’ to understanding the impact of that support, thus creating a step-change in business resource efficiency.

Weakness

The roll-out of systems can sometimes face the ‘not made here’ response; however, the ability to personalise the Toolkit branding, translate it and defer training responsibilities and ownership locally through the cascade approach have overcome this in previous roll-outs.

Another factor that should be considered, but that is also very sensitive, is the increase in transparency of data that the Toolkit creates/requires. Projects that captured the number of businesses they supported, may have only estimated the impact; however, with the Toolkit, scrutiny can be brought to bear, representing a significant shift in the data capture associated with delivery.

The availability of data, which includes data that is embedded into the Toolkit (national CO2e factors) and gathered as part of the business support service, also forms an important consideration. The ability of individuals to accurately process energy, waste, water and materials calculations is crucial in the accurate reporting of the Toolkit.

Opportunities

The primary opportunity presented by a roll-out of the Toolkit is that it can provide transparent and consistent data on business resource use and the types of opportunities to reduce it; it will also clearly demonstrate levels of uptake, potential savings (both cost and environmental) and implemented savings in real time at a range of organisational or geographical scales.

This data not only forms a robust audit trail that is compliant with European Funding requirements, but can also be used strategically by policy makers and programme managers to understand the effectiveness of the interventions and enable targeted support in specific areas. While most projects in this area will track ‘process’ outputs (e.g. number of businesses they have assisted), very few are able to track the impact of this work. Therefore, the Toolkit provides a means for projects to demonstrate the added value that they are creating.


The Toolkit could integrate with other business services, accelerating the cohesion and reporting of projects through its adoption in innovation, manufacturing or digital support, for example. A centrally financed and coordinated roll-out may also encourage a greater take-up of an integrated system.

Threats

One particular risk is ‘scope creep’. A temptation exists to expand the functionality of the Toolkit to incorporate very specific project requirements. However, this can quickly inflate development costs and add unnecessary levels of complexity. In previous roll-outs, development suggestions have been centrally coordinated to maximise collective benefit and deliver value for money.

Further developments

Several upgrades are currently planned, the majority of which are minor functionality improvements but a couple of the more significant developments are described below.

The alignment of the Toolkit with best practice reporting of Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions is currently under review. This will present a significant challenge and completion time is estimated at 6 months.

Additional developments are planned for the annual resource use data, which will allow businesses to produce simplified Carbon Footprints.

A function for emailing users key achievements/dates to increase their interaction with the Toolkit.

Bespoke homepages for specific programmes/users that displays live data.

5.8 Concluding remarks

Following on from the above analysis, some conclusions can be drawn about the opportunity to extend a monitoring such as that developed and utilised by ENWORKS to other programmes in other Member States, as well as the related costs.

Regarding the costs of implementation of a toolkit similar to the ENWORKS software, it should be noted that, from a business perspective, no cost is expected to be sustained by individual companies assisted by the programme. Potential “license costs”, for example, can be discounted by programme funding. In other words, the potential funding available for support to each company could also involve the financial resources needed to sustain the access to the software.

An estimate, provided in Table 1-1, defines the annual average cost of running the Toolkit as €40,000 (excluding annual software development, estimated at 37,200 € per year). This estimate is based on 10,000 UK businesses which can access and use the toolkit. In case of the extension of the programme to other Member States, similar annual costs could be expected for each programme that runs it. However, it has not possible to also provide an indication of the initial costs associated with the development of the software. One would have expected that this would comprise a significant up-front investment if similar software were to be created from scratch.

On the technical side, some features of the toolkit that would need to be adapted at the Member State level have been identified, such as:

The price of energy, water resources, and commonly used materials should be updated to meet the market trend in any single Member State, as well as the CO2 conversion factors which should take into account the national average;


Translation into national languages of both the content and the instruction manual of the software.

Although an estimate of the previous investment and other up-front costs cannot be provided, it can be expected that they will be sustained at start-up of the project, and they will not be charged to a single business. In other words, given the current data, the expanded adoption of monitoring software such as that used by ENWORKS should not face any major technical difficulties.

With regards to the SWOT analysis provided, it was pointed out that previous roll-outs of the Toolkit have been shown to be successful as the design allows for a wide number and variety of projects to be accommodated into its structure. It has proven to be an immensely useful project management tool, providing: a mechanism for performance management; a key element for businesses in catalysing the implementation of improvement opportunities; and a valuable resource for government and policy makers to identify future priority areas.

Given the resources allocated to the present study, it was not possible to evaluate the potential demand from enterprises located outside the UK for a toolkit similar to the one provided by ENWORKS. A future assessment of this demand could be implemented in three main steps:

1) A desk analysis about the productive structure of any Member State, to understand the potential number of SMEs that could be interested in use of such software;

2) An evaluation of similar software tools that may have been implemented in other Member States, focusing on the same topics as the ENWORKS toolkit;

3) Stakeholder engagement, involving questionnaires and telephone interviews with enterprises, business associations, and (potentially) project managers of similar toolkits, if any.


6 Overall findings

6.1 Summary of main findings

This study has used a range of data to investigate the impacts of a proposed €4 billion public investment, which aims to stimulate the uptake of resource efficiency measures in SMEs across four sectors in the EU-28. Table 6-1 presents the overall findings of the study in terms of the resource cost savings, reduction in resource use, and jobs created/secured at the EU-28 level34.

Table 6-1: Overview of the results

Indicator Aggregate value for the EU-28 (across SME four sectors)

Resource cost savings

Estimated savings € 8.7 billion

Validation approach1

€ 32.8 billion

Reduction in Resource Use

Energy savings 157 billion kWh/year

CO2 emissions 58.9 million tonnes/year

Material resources 1.7 billion tonnes/year

Water 51.3 million m3/year

Waste diverted from landfill 181.3 million tonnes/year

Jobs

Number created 128,180

Number created (Validation approach) 268,320

Number secured 360,630

Notes: 1Validation approach does not explicitly account for underlying levels of resource efficiency and

assumes a €11 billion leveraged private sector investment

From the Table it can be seen that the €4 billion public investment could lead to total resource cost savings across the EU-28 of around €8.7 billion. Across the four selected sectors, the results indicate that the largest cost savings could be realised in Construction and Food and Beverages. As shown in Section 3, these two sectors account for the highest number of SMEs among the four included within this study. Notably, the validation approach yields cost savings more than three times higher than those estimated using the first approach. However, this higher estimate should be interpreted with caution, as it does not explicitly account for underlying levels of resource efficiency and assumes that €11 billion will be invested by the private sector.

In terms of reductions in resource use the results indicate that the savings could be significant. For instance, the investment could lead to approximately 181.3 million tonnes of waste being diverted from landfills each year. Similarly, it could also lead to reductions in the use of around 1.7 billion tonnes of material resources annually. Again, the results indicate that the majority of these savings could be realised in Construction and Food and Beverages sectors.

With regards to employment, the results indicate that significant gains could be made. Firstly, the two approaches used indicate that around 128,000-268,000 jobs could be created as an indirect benefit of the induced resource efficiency savings. Secondly, the findings point towards the safeguarding of an extra 360,000 jobs, which would have been otherwise lost. With regards to the

34

Please note that the potential maximum findings are not presented in this table.


selected sectors, the results indicate the highest employment gains could be realised in either the Construction or Environmental Technologies sectors, dependent on the approach used.

Finally, regarding the possibility of rolling out the ENWORKS Online Resource Efficiency Toolkit across EU-28, no significant costs are expected to be incurred by the companies using this tool, and the use of such a toolkit in other Member States should not face any major technical hurdles. The costs of implementing such measures to monitor the outcomes of other support programmes are expected to mirror those of the ENWORKS programme, the most significant of which are only approximately €18,600 annually for software maintenance, licences and secure socket layers (SSL), €18,600-€24,180 for server hosting and a variable budget for software development to add future functionality. It is noted however, that the monitoring software developed and used under the ENWORKS programme is part of wider programme support involving professional support and advice to SMEs on resource efficiency and is not considered as a stand-alone product to be used without appropriate support for identifying relevant opportunities for cost and resource savings.

6.2 Limitations of the report

6.2.1 Missing data

The analysis has found that the results for some countries may be underestimated due to missing data. For instance, cost savings have not been estimated for Greece using the first approach as data for the number of SMEs in the Environmental Technologies and Energy, Power and Utilities sectors is missing. This will also mean that the outputs of Task 2 for Greece are limited as information for these sectors is not available.

6.2.2 Allocation of public sector investment

The study has assumed that the allocation of the proposed public sector investment is weighted by the number of SMEs per sector and Member State. It is entirely possible that the savings could be larger if a more efficient allocation was adopted, i.e. based on the relative returns of each sector and Member State. Thus the results in Table 5-1 may be underestimated to some degree.

6.2.3 Choice of sectors

Although this initial analysis does not focus on the individual sectors, it has become clear that the majority of SMEs included in this analysis are within the construction sector (see Section 3). Likewise, although not presented in this study, the initial findings show that the majority of savings accrue to this sector. Section 2.2.4 shows that the returns per € invested in this sector are low in relation to two of the sectors included in this study35. It may, therefore, be the case that targeting other sectors (aside from the four included in this study) could lead to higher overall resource cost savings.

6.2.4 Additionality

It should also be noted that the analysis assumes that the public sector investment will directly generate private investment and subsequent cost savings. It may be the case that a majority of these private investments would have occurred without the initial public investment anyway. This relates to the long standing debate on the ‘additionality’ of public investments (i.e. does a public

35

Energy, Power and Utilities, and Environmental Technologies


investment generate additional benefits over what would have occurred without such an investment)36. The results of this analysis should therefore be interpreted with caution as the overall direct effect of a public investment may be difficult to ascertain.

36

‘Leveraging private sector finance: How does it work and what are the risks?’, Bretton Woods Project, accessed at http://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/leveraging.pdf on 19/12/14

http://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/leveraging.pdf


7 Bibliography

AMEC. (2013). The opportunities to business of improving resource efficiency, Report for the European Commission. European Commission.

COWI. (2011). Economic Analysis if Resource Efficiency Policies – Final Report, report for DG Environment. European Commission.

EU Commission. (2011). A resource-efficient Europe – Flagship initiative under the Europe 2020 Strategy COM.

Oakdene Hollins. (2011, March). The Further Benefits of Business Resource Efficiency, A research report completed for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs . Defra.

RPA. (2014). Study on Economic and Social Benefits of Environmental Protection and Resource Efficiency Related to the European Semester. European Commission.

Van der Voet, E. (2005). Policy Review on Decoupling: Development of Indicators to Assess Decoupling of Economic Development and Environmental Pressure in the EU-25 and AC-3 Countries. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/natres/pdf/fin_rep_natres.pdf


Annex 1

7.1 Reductions in resource use for individual Member State by Sector

7.1.1 Food and Beverages

Table 7-1: Estimated reductions in resource use in the Food and Beverages sector

Country SMEs making cost savings Energy savings kWh/year



Water use savings m

3/year

Waste savings

tonnes/year

Austria 363 174,422,180 70,084 7,769,196 447,378 46,118

Belgium 758 444,838,032 178,991 21,108,834 668,183 86,462

Bulgaria 2,483 928,620,991 374,875 22,318,741 178,749 ..

Croatia 501 154,129,659 62,090 8,857,353 .. ..

Cyprus 84 46,727,642 18,837 1,221,489 99,569 841

Czech Republic 1,712 1,069,962,787 431,306 30,470,412 2,036,724 27,385

Denmark 188 102,020,070 41,090 3,475,394 1,967,820 14,260

Estonia 56 35,372,973 14,240 629,623 7,064 2,523

Finland 141 89,545,632 35,993 1,801,047 255,478 10,022

France 6,747 2,569,514,954 1,032,286 217,582,942 6,564,799 431,806

Germany 3,651 1,941,861,099 781,236 110,289,375 4,599,802 463,631

Greece 1,807 948,484,315 381,296 42,316,653 686,695 54,213

Hungary 3,190 1,082,075,037 433,837 54,535,834 899,573 79,749

Ireland 69 49,243,879 19,813 854,019 268,471 4,593

Italy 10,334 4,362,333,017 1,756,851 327,373,655 5,807,942 423,711

Latvia 196 43,110,383 17,401 2,263,483 128,845 1,955

Lithuania 103 32,171,254 12,994 1,903,006 18,357 928

Luxembourg 11 13,567,323 5,455 512,417 109,200 1,034

Malta 98 31,952,018 12,872 7,410,291 158,465 2,340

Netherlands 479 268,768,419 108,353 22,733,616 394,100 ..

Poland 4,310 1,983,372,201 797,281 61,683,690 1,611,800 64,644

Portugal 1,672 580,650,361 234,049 28,179,493 539,984 55,169

Romania 5,650 1,643,359,423 661,009 50,332,748 1,039,536 11,299


Table 7-1: Estimated reductions in resource use in the Food and Beverages sector




Water use savings m

3/year

Waste savings

tonnes/year

Slovakia 502 205,567,606 82,864 9,636,358 736,236 5,022

Slovenia 180 81,560,572 32,763 3,173,675 107,829 7,201

Spain 5,160 2,191,755,190 882,351 111,630,325 2,647,054 350,876

Sweden 344 111,445,918 44,674 7,985,288 720,624 34,021

UK 1,018 483,220,404 194,471 42,084,196 2,656,417 63,127

EU-28 51,805 21,669,653,339 8,719,364 1,200,133,156 35,356,692 2,242,929

7.1.2 Energy, Power and Utilities

Table 7-2: Estimated reductions in resource use in the Energy, Power and Utilities sector




Water use savings m

3/year

Waste savings

tonnes/year

Austria 270 114,972,786 87,829 17,836 14,323 9,458

Belgium 55 28,460,562 21,749 4,711 2,082 1,753

Bulgaria 808 267,654,756 204,391 22,620 2,424 ..

Croatia 93 25,429,397 19,400 5,130 .. ..

Cyprus 3 1,442,323 1,102 132 149 9

Czech Republic 1,367 756,778,972 578,125 75,170 71,070 6,834

Denmark 471 226,747,212 173,258 26,836 214,218 9,887

Estonia 30 16,600,235 12,683 1,040 149 386

Finland 125 70,273,121 53,650 4,877 9,880 2,501

France 2,444 824,337,926 630,489 241,932 102,638 43,988

Germany 373 175,922,595 134,422 34,726 20,537 13,442

Greece .. .. .. .. ..

Hungary 440 132,157,127 100,729 23,313 5,278 3,079

Ireland 30 19,307,211 14,749 1,153 5,159 577

Italy 1,374 513,661,740 391,548 134,638 32,972 16,486

Latvia 121 23,719,232 18,096 4,372 3,522 364

Lithuania 39 10,895,915 8,320 2,248 315 118

Luxembourg 6 6,795,860 5,186 893 2,680 167

Malta 8 2,282,338 1,746 1,840 558 55


Table 7-2: Estimated reductions in resource use in the Energy, Power and Utilities sector




Water use savings m

3/year

Waste savings

tonnes/year

Netherlands 87 42,972,888 32,801 12,636 3,116 ..

Poland 1,117 455,362,461 347,416 49,152 17,873 4,468

Portugal 155 47,770,972 36,492 8,075 2,174 1,398

Romania 851 219,231,957 167,631 22,975 6,807 851

Slovakia 64 23,111,772 17,658 3,761 4,080 191

Slovenia 196 78,735,397 60,037 10,595 5,101 2,158

Spain 3,231 1,215,580,933 927,288 216,475 71,081 61,388

Sweden 252 72,476,785 55,257 18,167 22,961 7,065

UK 262 110,341,257 84,259 33,599 29,661 4,462

EU-28 14,273 114,972,786 4,186,310 978,900 650,808 191,087

7.1.3 Environmental Technologies

Table 7-3: Estimated reductions in resource use in the Environmental Technologies sector




Water use savings m

3/year

Waste savings

tonnes/year

Austria 153 2,442,216 921 78,717 1,688 1,146,381

Belgium 133 2,594,304 1,068 89,173 1,068 899,476

Bulgaria 315 3,906,398 1,576 68,080 315 ..

Croatia 112 1,143,567 449 47,541 .. ..

Cyprus 23 422,282 161 7,981 229 13,279

Czech Republic 1,273 26,374,408 10,186 543,684 12,733 1,236,340

Denmark 71 1,270,477 494 31,309 6,558 316,896

Estonia 21 436,380 167 5,615 21 55,270

Finland 63 1,316,260 501 19,161 1,002 262,050

France 1,088 13,732,909 5,441 842,323 9,794 4,122,376

Germany 360 6,343,795 2,520 260,950 3,959 2,704,166

Greece .. .. .. .. .. ..

Hungary 764 8,591,935 3,058 313,407 1,529 1,107,626

Ireland 35 827,564 313 10,396 1,217 136,994

Italy 1,512 21,151,311 9,073 1,149,281 7,561 3,689,798


Table 7-3: Estimated reductions in resource use in the Environmental Technologies sector




Water use savings m

3/year

Waste savings

tonnes/year

Latvia 67 487,349 200 18,544 400 38,289

Lithuania 27 283,491 110 12,149 55 14,590

Luxembourg 4 173,619 70 4,749 373 23,643

Malta 26 280,541 103 47,106 362 36,873

Netherlands 129 2,392,126 901 146,425 901 ..

Poland 2,143 32,683,704 12,860 735,164 6,430 1,871,131

Portugal 176 2,027,807 881 71,182 529 341,286

Romania 1,956 18,852,796 7,824 418,603 3,912 224,950

Slovakia 146 1,979,016 730 67,120 1,897 88,715

Slovenia 46 692,306 277 19,506 231 107,630

Spain 655 9,225,100 3,933 340,165 3,277 2,632,185

Sweden 124 1,336,447 497 69,272 2,239 726,303

UK 937 14,735,797 5,622 928,601 21,552 3,437,041

EU-28 12,362 2,442,216 69,935 6,346,205 89,831 25,233,289

7.1.4 Construction sector

Table 7-4: Estimated reductions in resource use in the Construction sector




Water use savings m

3/year

Waste savings

tonnes/year

Austria 3,090 830,791,336 293,545 2,762,414 117,418 2,570,837

Belgium 9,535 3,130,446,195 1,106,060 11,089,208 266,980 7,160,787

Bulgaria 8,038 1,682,973,191 594,807 3,022,261 16,076 ..

Croatia 3,025 521,135,824 184,497 2,235,142 .. ..

Cyprus 594 184,719,849 65,328 360,493 21,974 38,009

Czech Republic 35,729 12,502,969,365 4,430,446 26,582,677 1,321,988 3,858,776

Denmark 3,901 1,187,229,077 421,270 3,019,103 1,279,413 1,954,226

Estonia 1,085 383,108,363 135,587 508,723 4,339 319,986

Finland 3,753 1,332,756,577 472,876 2,000,341 213,920 1,748,891

France 56,281 11,997,886,282 4,221,041 75,866,173 1,688,416 23,750,389

Germany 30,508 9,083,719,572 3,203,316 38,531,316 1,189,803 25,535,005


Table 7-4: Estimated reductions in resource use in the Construction sector




Water use savings m

3/year

Waste savings

tonnes/year

Greece 4,035 1,185,350,314 419,592 3,949,809 48,414 798,838

Hungary 28,174 5,349,515,281 1,887,630 20,115,938 253,562 4,535,947

Ireland 3,041 1,222,536,470 431,766 1,584,156 370,954 1,334,826

Italy 89,249 21,088,193,609 7,496,914 118,165,640 1,606,482 24,275,721

Latvia 1,757 216,871,199 77,313 850,441 36,899 112,455

Lithuania 1,552 270,974,303 96,210 1,196,420 9,311 91,555

Luxembourg 253 169,068,663 59,706 476,640 75,898 151,796

Malta 857 157,219,594 55,718 2,722,477 43,717 136,295

Netherlands 13,762 4,318,459,375 1,527,582 27,276,277 357,812 ..

Poland 71,529 18,426,711,651 6,509,108 42,774,136 858,344 6,938,280

Portugal 12,922 2,512,299,401 891,624 9,097,150 129,221 2,791,171

Romania 25,788 4,198,862,858 1,495,698 9,593,098 154,727 335,243

Slovakia 17,512 4,012,405,876 1,418,449 14,044,392 805,539 1,190,796

Slovenia 2,227 564,887,912 200,462 1,641,559 42,320 579,112

Spain 50,775 12,072,642,470 4,265,126 45,900,881 812,405 22,696,564

Sweden 9,872 1,792,035,197 631,784 9,585,346 641,655 6,426,427

UK 34,993 9,296,292,878 3,289,361 60,433,252 2,834,449 14,312,218

EU-28 523,834 129,692,062,683 45,882,816 535,385,461 15,202,037 153,644,148

Risk & Policy Analysts Limited Farthing Green House, 1 Beccles Road

Loddon, Norfolk, NR14 6LT, United Kingdom

Tel: +44 1508 528465 Fax: +44 1508 520758

E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.rpaltd.co.uk

If printed by RPA, this report is published on 100% recycled paper

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.rpaltd.co.uk/

assessing the potential cost savings and resource savings...

Documents